Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Smethwick Corporation (Gas) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Frimley and Farnborough District Water Company) Bill.
Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.

Bills to be read a second time To-morrow.

Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the
Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Seaham Harbour Dock.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Runcorn District Water Board Bill [Lords]—(King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Bank of England Bill (by Order),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR PENSIONS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Mr. PETO: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is in agreement with the object of the War Pensions Acts (Amendment) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts); and whether the Government intend to give facilities for its passage into law during the present Session?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): My view of the actual proposals contained in this Bill is given in my reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. A. J. Bennett) on the 19th April. With regard to the latter part of the question, I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Bromwich on the 16th April by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. MACPHERSON: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to make a statement to the House on this important question?

Major TRYON: I hope, if the Opposition consider there is anything wrong with the administration of pensions, they will take the opportunity of saying so in Debate, and I shall be glad of the opportunity of replying. The whole principle of this Bill can be secured by administration.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If you get the "bag" will you take it?

Mr. LANSBURY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman kindly communicate with
those who want to help him in administering the principle embodied in that Bill and tell us how we can do it?

Mr. PETO: Am I to understand that the principle embodied in the Bill, namely, that all incapacity is to be considered as attributable to War service, unless the contrary is proved, is one which the right hon. Gentleman accepts and says he can carry nut by administration?

Major TRYON: No Government could possibly accept that principle, and no Government could administer such a Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

AREA STATISTICS.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether statistical returns are regularly prepared by chief area officers and forwarded to the Ministry; whether these officers are aware of the number of men in their areas under treatment; and, if so, will he state the nature of the difficulty which prevents them from giving the number of such cases that are those of pensioners who have been notified of final awards?

Major TRYON: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I am considering whether by an adaptation of the standard form of return the particulars to which the hon. Member refers can be made readily available in future.

SUB-OFFICES (DURHAM).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of whole-time and part-time sub-offices closed in the county of Durham during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1922; whether he is aware that the regional advisory council was informed at the time they were considering the reorganisation proposals that sub-offices necessary for the convenience of pensioners would be retained; and what facilities exist at the present time in the colliery and rural villages situate some miles from the area offices for pensioners requiring treatment or desiring to submit claims for consideration.

Major TRYON: When the new organisation was introduced last May there
were in the county of Durham 19 sub-offices and 32 part-time pay stations. An extension of the postal draft system of payment enabled the pay stations to be dispensed with, and the sub-offices were gradually closed down where the volume of the work no longer justified their retention, until the present organisation, consisting of eight area offices, two whole-time sub-offices, and seven part-time sub-offices, was arrived at. These arrangements, with the assistance of voluntary workers, of whom there are already 280, have been found to meet all reasonable requirements of pensioners in the district.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties in the way of pensioners desiring to submit claims, because of the distances involved and the lack of travelling facilities and will he consider the last part of my question?

Major TRYON: I shall be happy to consider any case where the hon. Member can show me that difficulties have arisen in the working of the new system, as we are anxious to watch how it goes and make any improvement which may prove to be necessary.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of widows who have been refused pensions on the ground that the marriage had taken place after the pensioner had left the Army?

Major TRYON: No separate record is kept of these cases; nor would such a record be of any value, as it would only indicate the extent to which claimants were unaware of the express provisions of the Royal Warrant.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of these women have had to resort to the Poor Law; and does he not think it time the Royal Warrant was amended to make provision for them?

Major TRYON: The Ministry is, by the action of the House, limited to compensation for anything which arises out of the War, and I am not prepared to make such an alteration as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. BROTHERTON: 15.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many applications
for widows' pensions were made in the 12 months ending 31st March 1923; and how many were refused owing to the death of the pensioner not being accepted as due to a disability incurred on war service, or owing to the pensioner dying more than seven years after the first removal from duty?

Major TRYON: During the period stated 9,725 applications for widows' pension were considered by the Department, and in 4,540 cases full pension was granted under Article 11, while of the cases which had to be rejected, on various grounds, under that Article, 340 were found to be eligible for a smaller pension under some other provision of the Warrant.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the hon. Member's question. How many were refused because of the death, due to disability, occurring seven years after removal from duty?

Major TRYON: I do not think that is asked for separately in the question, but we can give that answer if it be asked for specifically.

INSTRUCTIONS.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: 12.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many confidential instructions have been issued by the Secretariat of the Ministry; whether any of them amend and alter the interpretation of the clauses of Royal Warrants and Ministry regulations; whether these instructions before being issued are submitted for consideration to the Central Advisory Committee; and whether, as the Minister responsible to Parliament for carrying out the provisions of the Royal Warrants, he will in future lay instructions upon the Table of the House before they are issued?

Major TRYON: I do not know what particular instructions the hon. Member has in view. In accordance with the customary practice of all public Departments, instructions to subordinate officers are issued on my behalf, as from time to time may be found necessary, on all branches of the work of my Department. No instruction affecting the existing interpretation of the Royal Warrants is issued without my concurrence, and it has been my policy and that of my predecessor
to seek the advice of the Advisory Committee freely on proposals of sufficient magnitude or difficulty. I could not accept the suggestion in the last part of the question, which would be impracticable.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is it a fact that the instructions so issued have in any way altered the interpretation previosuly put upon the Clauses of the Royal Warrant and the Regulations?

Major TRYON: I must have notice of any particular point the hon. Member wishes to raise, but I wish to make it perfectly clear that no instructions have been issued in any way to prejudice the decisions of the medical boards as against the men.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is not an answer to my question, of which I gave notice, and which appears on the Paper. Do any of these confidential instructions, in fact, alter the interpretation of the Clauses of the Royal Warrant and the Ministry's Regulations? I submit I should have an answer to that question.

Major TRYON: It is quite clear that we are governed by the Warrant and we carry out the Warrant.

HOME TREATMENT CASES (GATESHEAD).

Mr. BROTHERTON: 13.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that there are a number of men in the Borough of Gateshead who are in receipt of home treatment without allowances; that most of them are totally incapacitated and unable to work; that their pensions, often only 8s. a week, are insufficient to live upon; and whether he will either give instructions that these men shall receive full treatment allowances or arrange for them to be boarded so that their degree of assessment will afford fuller compensation for periods of sickness than is the case at present?

Major TRYON: In the absence of information as to the cases which the hon. Member has in view, I am unable to say what can be done; but if he will furnish particulars they shall be fully inquired into.

BRONCHITIS AND ASTHMA CASES.

Mr. BROTHERTON: 14.
asked the Minister of Pensions what provision is
made in the case of men suffering from bronchitis and/or asthma who appeal on the grounds that they are under-assessed; and whether men suffering from these disabilities, on home treatment without allowances, can have the same privilege extended to them as is given to the men on in-patient treatment with allowances, i.e., that they may be reboarded when ill and not, as at present, have to wait until they have recovered from the attack of sickness that incapacitates them from work before the appeal to the Medical Appeal Board is considered?

Major TRYON: The right of application for reconsideration of a conditional assessment applies equally to all disabilities and the instructions do not, as the hon. Member appears to think, preclude applications of this nature being dealt with when the man is undergoing home treatment without allowances.

FINAL AWARDS.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 18.
asked the Minister of Pensions in how many cases an increase in the current rate of pension has been made when a final award was given in a four-year case; and what reduction in the expenditure for pensions it is estimated will occur as a result of the granting of final weekly allowances in lieu of conditional pensions and the issue of a final award at a lower percentage than that current when the pensioner was before the Board for final award?

Major TRYON: In some 4,000 cases the final award has been at a higher rate than the previous conditional award. The amount of the payment is, and always has been, decided by the extent of the disablement. I am unable to estimate that any decrease in the expenditure on pensions (as distinct from administration) will arise from making final awards.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the Minister kindly answer the third paragraph in the question, regarding the reduction of pensions and number which have been reduced?

Major TRYON: I went carefully through the hon. and gallant Member's question, and I think I have answered it fully. He is mistaken in thinking that making final awards involves economy, except in administration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the hardship inflicted in many cases by his refusal to continue to their dependants the issue of pensions granted to ex-service men for disabilities incurred during war service when their subsequent death happens to occur more than seven years after the date of the casualty responsible for their disability; and will he take steps to amend the Royal Warrant so that such pensions may be continued?

Major TRYON: I am not quite clear what the hon. Member has in mind, but I may point out that I have no authority in any circumstances to continue pensions awarded to disabled to their dependants.

EDUCATIONAL GRANTS.

Mr. EDE: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the total number of educational grants made by the Special Grants Committee in the 12 months ending 31st March, 1923; what was the number of cases in which grants were renewed and how many current grants were cancelled; what was the number of new applications for educational grants recommended by the War Pensions Committee, and in how many cases were grants made; whether he is aware that grave dissatisfaction exists among members of war pensions committees at the refusal of grants for the education of the orphan children of deceased ex-service men; and whether he will take action to ensure that applications for educational grants receive sympathetic consideration?

Major TRYON: During the period mentioned the number of new educational grants made for the children of non-commissioned officers and men was 1,622, the number renewed was 4,724, while 457 were withdrawn. About 3,500 new applications were received, but I am afraid that without considerable research I could not say how many of these were recommended by the War Pensions Committee. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that applications of this nature are given full and sympathetic consideration.

TRAINEE (W. E. PISTON HUGHES).

Mr. HINDS: 16.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of W. E. Picton Hughes, of the Factory House, Llandovery, a trainee at the Prince of Wales' convalescent centre, Barry, who, on the 29th March last, was given leave to visit his family, and who has been refused readmission to the convalescent centre owing to an outbreak of scarlet fever in his home; is he aware that the treatment allowance has been suspended and that the family have no means of subsistence; and whether, in view of the fact that the man is prevented from returning to the convalescent home by circumstances over which he has no control, steps will be taken to pay the home treatment allowance during the man's enforced detention at home?

Major TRYON: I am having the circumstances of this case inquired into and will communicate with the hon. Member.

TEACHERS.

Mr. FOOT: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of students who have left training colleges for teachers since the summer of 1922; what proportion of this number is made up of ex-service men who have undergone intensive training; and how many of these men who have undergone intensive training have obtained employment as certificated teachers?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): The number of students who finished their courses at training colleges of all descriptions after the end of the session 1921–22 is 980. The total number of ex-service men who have left the special training colleges conducted by the Ministry of Labour is 915, but this figure includes 150 who left before the end of the session 1921–22. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour tells me that 585 of these men are known to be employed as teachers and 495 are fully certificated. I should add that 300 of the ex-service students in question did not complete their course until February and April this year.

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 78.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there is a system under which
Government grants are made to ex-soldiers to assist them to purchase their own homes; and if, in that case, he can state what this system is and the extent to which recourse is being made to it by ex-service men?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am not quite clear what system the hon. Member has in mind. Unless he is thinking of the land settlement schemes—as to which he will be able to obtain information from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland—I am not aware of any system of the nature described.

EX-TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS.

Mr. HAYDAY: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the great difficulty experienced by ex-service men, temporary civil servants, who are discharged as redundant, in obtaining other employment; whether representations have been made by the association representing these men that, in view of the fact that the nature of their work in the Civil Service does not qualify them for posts in civil employment, and that there is a prejudice in commercial circles against employing them as clerks, they should be given a month's pay for each year's service where the officer discharged as redundant has been at least four years in the Civil Service; and whether action will be taken to give the ex-service men and women discharged as redundant a gratuity on discharge if they have completed four years or more satisfactory service as temporary civil servants?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: It is largely in view of the difficulty of obtaining private employment in present circumstances that a special body has been set up with the duty of seeing that, where ever possible, alternative employment in other Government Departments is offered to ex-service men who have been engaged in temporary capacies in a Department in which their services are no longer required. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The Treasury have no power to grant retiring gratuities in these cases.

Mr. HAYDAY: Seeing that female telegraphists and other women civil servants are granted a gratuity upon leaving the Service, could not the Department
reconsider the matter with a view to extending the same principle to ex-service men and women when they leave the Service on redundancy?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have already said that we have no power in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. HAYDAY: 17.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the late regional director of the Northern Region was transferred to the South-Western Region at his own request; whether his removal expenses were paid; whether the present regional director, Northern Region, was transferred from Nottingham to Newcastle to fill the vacancy, as the regional headquarters at Nottingham were being closed; whether his removal expenses have been, or will be, paid; and, if so, will he state why the lower grade clerical staff cannot receive the same privileges on transfer as regional directors with a salary of £875 per annum, who have, in addition, service pensions?

Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and that to the second part in the affirmative. When the transfer of a particular officer to a new station is necessitated by the public interest, removal expenses may be paid. This rule applies to all ranks, permanent or temporary.

Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position of the clerks who are redundant at Nottingham, in view of the fact that their salaries are only £3 per week and it is well nigh impossible for them to take up appointments in Birmingham unless assisted by the payment of removal expenses?

Major TRYON: I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking such as the hon. Member asks for. If any of them are removed by our wish, as being essential for our requirements, then it will be open to them to claim payment.

Mr. HAYDAY: Was not a promise given that the redundant servants at Nottingham would be allotted to vacancies at Birmingham; and if these vacancies are offered and accepted and the removal takes place, will not the Department consider
the payment of the removal expenses, as they do in the case of the higher paid permanent officials?

Major TRYON: It is not a case of whether they are higher paid or not. When we send a man, whatever his rank, from one place to another, by our orders his removal expenses are paid—not otherwise.

Mr. HAYDAY: If in consequence of the removal of the Department from Nottingham to Birmingham, these men take vacancies in Birmingham, whether at the request of the Department or not, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to pay removal expenses?

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the higher officials who got removal expenses has £900 a year in addition to £1,000 pension?

Major TRYON: I am not prepared to go beyond what I have said.

Mr. HAYDAY: Does it not appear that it is a farce to say you will find vacancies for £3 a week clerks if you make it impossible for them to accept the vacancies?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 19.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of discharges of temporary officers on the ground of redundancy, priority of retention is accorded as follows: disabled ex-service men, overseas ex-service men, other ex-service men, and non-service men; whether the non-service men in his Department are mainly permanent civil servants; and whether, before discharging a temporary ex-service man as redundant, he will consider the question of reverting a permanent civil servant, non-service, to the Department whence he was transferred to the Ministry of Pensions?

Major TRYON: Subject to the overriding consideration of efficiency, the answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The suggestion made in the concluding paragraph is impracticable; the permanent posts formerly held by these officers have naturally been filled. In any case, their reversion would not be in the public interests, nor would it add to the total number of ex-service men in the employ of the State.

Mr. MUIR: 20.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the name and salary of the principal officer in each region; whether some of these officers are permanent civil servants and some temporary civil servants; and whether, seeing that, though performing duties of equal importance and responsibility, the

Region.
Name of Principal Officer.
Salary.







£


London
…
Lieut.-General Sir W. Furse, K.C.B., D.S.O.
…
…
975


Scotland
…
Lieut.-Colonel H. L. Warden, D.S.O.
…
…
975


Northern
…
Major-General F. H. Kelly, C.B., C.M.G.
…
…
875


North-Western
…
Lieut.-Colonel C. H. Townsend
…
…
900


Yorkshire
…
Dr. F. G. M. Simpson (Acting)
…
…
1,300*


Wales
…
Lieut.-Colonel Bickerton Edwards, C.B.E.
…
…
1,300*


West Midlands
Lieut.-Colonel E. V. Sydenham, D.S.O.
…
…
900


East Midlands


South-Western
…
Captain H. G. Alston, C.B., R.N.
…
…
875


Ulster
…
Dr. A. E. Knight, D.S.O., M.C.
…
…
1,200*


Ireland (South)
…
C. A. Pim
…
…
875


* Also holds the post of Commissioner of Medical Services.

All those officers are temporary civil servants and the latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. A. J. BENNETT: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any of the various Committees which are being set up will be able to inquire into the desirability of modifying or retaining the present pensionable age of the various classes of public servants; and whether, seeing that considerations have arisen since those ages were originally fixed which may modify their retention, he will, in the interests of the general taxpayer, consider in any case the desirability of such investigation?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): A Special Committee of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service has been set up to deal with questions of superannuation. It would be open to that Committee to examine the particular question referred to in the hon. Member's question.

BRITISH MUSEUM.

Mr. JOHN JONES: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the arrangement between the Treasury and the Corps of Commissionaires

temporary civil servants receive less salary than the permanent civil servant, he will state what is the reason for the differentiation in salary?

Major TRYON: As the answer is a lengthy one, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

neither the British Museum nor its trustees are mentioned; that copies of this arrangement were given to the men employed in the Museum in January, 1921, some time after application had been made to the Civil Service Arbitration Board for their case to be again put on the list; whether he is aware that the men's case was prejudiced by being withdrawn from arbitration in December, 1920, after it had been waiting since July of that year, and, being dealt with in 1921, no award was given until March, 1922; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, and also of the fact that the trustees of the British Museum have not applied to the men the provisions of the Treasury letter of January, 1921, under which the weekly wage staffs were to be given a 48-hour week, he will reconsider the decision not to grade these men?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): As stated in answer to previous questions, no arrangement exists between the Treasury and the Corps of Commissionaires in regard to the commissionaires in the British Museum. Any postponement in the presentation of the commissionaires' case to the Civil Service Arbitration Board was due to the commissionaires' own
action, and there is no reason to suppose that their case was prejudiced thereby. On the contrary, they benefited, inasmuch as they received an improvement in their rate of remuneration in the intervening period, and were relieved of certain payments to the Corps of Commissionaires for which they had been previously liable. The question of grading has already been fully considered, and I am not aware that the decision reached on this point, is in any way affected by the hours worked by the commissionaires.

INLAND REVENUE.

Mr. BECKER: 77.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the average deduction made in the wages of the 4,667 persons receiving not more than £3 per week employed at the Inland Revenue Office since the last increment was granted?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I regret that it is impossible to calculate the suggested average figures without undue expenditure of time and labour. A wage of £3 8s. 4d. a year ago is now represented by £3, as the result of the revision by reference to cost of living, to which the remuneration of all civil servants is subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

ROYAL, IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Vice-Regal Commission on the Reorganisation and Pay of the Irish Police Forces, the Chairman of which was the right hon. Sir John Ross, one of the judges of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, unanimously recommended, in December, 1919, that the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund (Benefit Branch) should be wound up as soon as possible; and whether, in view of the fact that there have been no entrants into this fund since 1883 and that the Royal Irish Constabulary has now been disbanded, he will consider the advisability of giving effect without further delay to the above recommendation of the Vice-Regal Commission?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the
affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to a question on this subject addressed to him on the 19th February last by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Mr. Moles), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my hon. Friend reconsider this question, as the conditions are constantly changing, and there is now a large surplus in this Fund?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that all the ex-Royal Irish Constabulary men in this country are anxious that this Fund should be wound up?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will convey those questions to my right hon. Friend.

DEPORTEES.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by Thomas McGlynn, who was deported to Ireland and subsequently released, to the effect that his release was in no way due to reasons of ill-health, and that he gave no undertaking not to involve himself in future activities against the Irish Free State, as he has never previously taken action hostile to the Free State; and whether he will make further inquiry into the reason of McGlynn's release?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer to the reply given to a similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 26th ultimo.

Mr. NEWBOLD: 37.
asked the Home Secretary in what place in His Majesty's Dominions Joseph Sweeney, of 378, Windmill Hill, Motherwell, deported to Ireland on or about 10th March last, is at present lodged; and whether he can give any indication as to when this man will be permitted to return to the land of his birth and to his own home?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): Joseph Sweeney is at present interned in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give any indication when these people, who were deported many months ago, are going to have any trial, or whether they are going to have any justice meted out to them at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PENSIONS (W. HUCKLE, NEWMARKET).

Mr. HAROLD GRAY: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Police Constable William Huckle, of Newmarket, was ordered to hand in his uniform on 1st April, 1919; and whether, seeing that this constable was consequently on duty subsequent to 31st March, 1919, and could have been called upon to perform duties during the early hours of 1st April, 1919, he will be held entitled to a pension on the higher scale, which is payable to all who were discharged subsequent to 31st March, 1919?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am informed that ex-Police Constable Huckle ceased duty at 10.30 p.m. on 31st March, 1919, and his journal for that day contains the entry, "Retired after 33 years 2 months 9 days' service." He was not on duty on 1st April and was not regarded as available for duty on that day. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend sees no ground for the suggestion that Police Constable Hackle is entitled to reassessment of his pension on the higher scale.

Sir J. REMNANT: Will the hon. Member ask the Home Secretary to look into this matter further, in order to see whether this man, who had to parade on 1st April in accordance with the orders and instructions given to him, was not, as the ordinary man would believe, carrying out his duties, and, therefore, on duty and, if so, is he not entitled to the increased pension?

Mr. HAYES: Is it not a fact that the conveyance of a uniform after a man has completed his tour of duty is regarded as additional duty, so much so that, in the Metropolitan Police, for which the hon. Gentleman's Department is directly responsible, there is an instruction that a man must hand in his uniform before he completes his tour of duty; and is he aware that, in a recent High Court decision against the Standing
Joint Committee of Gloucestershire, it was held that a man who was on duty for only half-an-hour after he had completed his time for pension was actually entitled to the increased pension?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), I will convey what he says to the Home Secretary, but I understand that this man was not told to parade on let April.

Sir J. REMNANT: I have seen the instruction to him to do so.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In reply to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), I understand that this officer did not attend to hand in his uniform on 1st April, but that the articles of clothing were handed in by another officer.

Sir J. REMNANT: He took them himself.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNCERTIFIED DEATHS.

Mr. HANCOCK: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the number of deaths for the year 1922 in which the cause of death was not, or could not, be certified?

Lord EUSTACE PERCY (for Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The number of uncertified deaths in the year in question was 5,487.

Oral Answers to Questions — DORIS HAWKER.

Mr. BECKER: 26.
asked the Home Secretary who will adopt Doris Hawker (Doreen Hawkes) upon her return to England?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am informed that the girl is returning to her mother.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORN PORTERS.

Mr. J. DAVISON: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, arising out of the Corn Sales Act, 1921, men engaged carrying sacks of corn to and from lighters, ships and warehouses are carrying weights up to 18 and 20 stones all day long, and in some cases for
several days together, resulting in damage to their physique, accidents and sometimes loss of life; and whether any steps can be taken to ameliorate the conditions of labour of these workmen?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No complaints on this subject have been received at the Home Office, and, so far as London is concerned, it would appear from inquiries made by the Factory Department that the weight of the sack does not generally exceed 16 stones, which is regarded by the men as reasonable, and that there has been no recent alteration in the practice. If, however, the hon. Member will furnish me with the information on which his question is based, I shall be glad to have the matter further investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAINTENANCE ORDER APPLICATIONS (IDENTIFICATION).

Mr. BRIANT: 28.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to a case in which a man was charged with being the father of an illegitimate child, but was discharged at once owing to the plaintiff immediately stating that he was not the man against whom she wished the charge to be made; and whether he will consider the possibility of devising a method of preliminary identification which will prevent an innocent man being subjected to a humiliating ordeal in an open court when his innocence could at once have been proved without any appearance in a public court?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend cannot think of any means of precluding absolutely the possibility of such an incident as this. I would point out that proceedings for determining the paternity of an illegitimate child and making the father liable for its maintenance are not criminal proceedings, but are taken on complaint by the child's mother.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that expert opinion is in favour of the reform of the law regarding imprisonment for debt; and whether he will consider the introduction of other methods of dealing with this offence?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am aware that the law on the subject has been criticised. My right hon. Friend could not propose legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEMBLEY STADIUM.

FOOTBALL CUP TIE.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 30
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether the Metropolitan Police, when accepting duty on premises to which the public have not access, such as Wembley Park and other places, accept responsibility for the preservation of order; if so, whether they decide the strength of the force required and make provision for available reserves;
(2) whether he will institute an inquiry, in the interests of the Metropolitan Police, into the arrangements made in connection with the final of the English Cup at Wembley, the failure to make reasonable provision for the safety of spectators, and the inability to cope with the serious and dangerous situation which arose as a result;
(3) whether he will take steps to prevent the user of the Stadium at Wembley Park for any large gathering till such time as the entrances and exits to and from the structures and ground have been replanned and rebuilt to make them reasonably safe for the public; and whether he will consider the advisability of initiating legislation requiring all grounds and buildings to which the public are invited in large numbers to be licensed only after the appropriate licensing authority has satisfied itself as to the proper planning and construction of the premises for the purposes proposed, and under conditions and regulations requiring good management and control?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As regards the first, two questions, I can add nothing to the answer given by my right hon. Friend yesterday. As regards the third question, if some form of Committee is appointed to consider the question in all its aspects, the adequacy of existing powers in relation to grounds and buildings of the kind would be one of the matters for inquiry.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman also include in the scope of the inquiry some of the football fields around Oxford?

Oral Answers to Questions — LUNACY (MARRIED PERSONS).

Mr. SNELL: 33.
asked the Home Secretary how many married persons are at present detained in lunatic asylums in England and Wales; how many of these have been certified for more than five years; whether the Government intend to promote legislation to carry into effect the recommendations of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce; and is he aware that the late Home Secretary in July, 1921, promised to give the information now asked for to the House?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am informed by the Board of Control that information was collected by them in 1921, and it was found that on the 1st January of that year there were under care in institutions for the insane in England and Wales (excluding Broadmoor), 14,058 males and 19,292 females, who were described as married; and that of these 7,121 males and 10,801 females had been certified more than five years. There are no later figures available. It is not the intention of the Government to promote legislation on the subject this Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHAIRMEN OF GUARDIANS (JUSTICES OF THE PEACE).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether his consultation with the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of Health has taken place with reference to the question of appointing the chairman of a board of guardians as justice of the peace by virtue of and for the period of his office; and, if so, whether any decision has been arrived at?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 18th April by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to a question asked by the hon. Member for the Bodmin Division (Mr. Foot).

Oral Answers to Questions — HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC.

Mr. G. WHITE: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in certain counties a campaign exists against those using the roads for heavy motor traffic, taking the form of frequent
prosecutions and heavy fines, with a view to directing this traffic to other roads in other counties; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. There is no evidence in my possession to support the assertion in the first part of the hon. Member's question, and I do not think it necessary to institute any formal inquiry into the matter.

Mr. G. WHITE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the matter further if I send him evidence which has reached me?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will send me any information, I shall be glad to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPLIFTING CONVICTION (BRIXTON).

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Marie Dickenson, aged 82, was sentenced at Brixton last week to three months' imprisonment for shoplifting; and whether, in view of her age, he will recommend her discharge on probation, or, alternatively, make arrangements for her period of detention to be served in some place other than a convict prison?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This woman was convicted at Lambeth Police Court after very many previous convictions of similar offences. She is serving her sentence at Holloway Prison. My right hon. Friend could not recommend her release on probation. The experiment of merely binding her over has been tried more than once. On one such occasion, in 1919, she was convicted again in less than a month.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the same day that this old lady of 82 was sent to prison for three months, at the London Sessions, a wealthy lady 20 years younger was charged on three separate counts with shoplifting and was bound over?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have not any particulars here of such a case.

Oral Answers to Questions — LETTERS (OPENING).

Captain W. BENN: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is his practice to issue warrants authorising the Postmaster-General to open specified letters, or whether he issues a warrant authorising the opening of all letters addressed to certain individuals; and how long the present practice has been in vogue?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Warrants are issued in respect of specified letters or of all letters addressed to a specified individual, according as circumstances may require. The present practice has been in vogue for many years.

Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the practice of issuing warrants for the opening of all letters addressed to one individual has been in vogue for a long time, and, if so, for how many years?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am afraid I cannot say for how many years, but that particular practice has been in vogue for a great number of years.

Mr. PONSONBY: Is it not a fact that that practice was introduced in 1914 and never existed before then?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My information is that it has been the practice for a great many years; I can find out how many years if the hon. Member puts down a question.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Do the Post Office open letters without a warrant from the Home Office?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly not.

Commander BELLAIRS: Who specifies the opening of these letters?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: A warrant has always to be obtained from the Home Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEED STAMPING (PENALTIES)

Mr. HANCOCK: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether any penalties have been paid after stamping of deeds in England since 1917; and, if so, will he give the amount for each year and the amount remitted or returned?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have been asked to reply to this question. Particulars of the amounts paid as penalties on after stamping are given in the annual reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The amounts for the years 1921–22 and 1922–23 are £8,756 and £16,690 respectively. I am unable to give the amount by which the full penalties legally exigible exceed the amounts paid.

Oral Answers to Questions — STOKE PARK INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, BRISTOL.

Mr. HAYDAY: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to complaints regarding the treatment of girls in Stoke Park Industrial School, Stapleton, Bristol; whether he is aware that Edith Mansfield, who was sent to this school at 11 years of age to be detained until she reached the age of 16, is still confined there at the age of 22; that Dora Thorp was sent to this school at the age of 12 and is still there in her twenty-fourth year; and whether he will make inquiries as to the reason for the detention of these girls, and any others in a like position, beyond the period specified at the time of their entry into the school?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Both these girls were committed by order of a Court to industrial schools until they reached the age of 16. The former was certified to be mentally defective, and transferred to the Stoke Park Colony, under Section 9 of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913. The latter was not found fit for discharge on the expiry of her sentence, as her mental condition was reported to be that of a child of 11, and her home offered no proper means of supervision. I understand that the guardians who accepted responsibility for her maintenance decided that in the girl's own interest she needed further care and training at the Stoke Park Colony. In neither case has my right hon. Friend any further jurisdiction, but he is bringing the hon. Member's question to the notice of the Minister of Health.

Mr. HAYDAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say at what period during their detention mental deficiency was first detected?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I rather think the age was 16 years, but I would prefer a question to be put down about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCUSED PERSONS (CORONER'S WARRANT).

Mr. MARDY JONES: 40.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will grant a judicial inquiry into the apparently conflicting functions of coroners and magistrates with reference to the preliminary investigation into cases of homicide and into the necessity for such a change in the administration of the law as will protect accused persons who are acquitted by the magistrates from having to await trial at the assizes on a coroner's warrant?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The questions involved will be considered before any general Amendment of the law as to coroner's inquests is proposed.

Mr. JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman also answer Question 97, as it is correlated to this question?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (STATISTICS).

Mr. BECKER: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many children attended free elementary schools, and the numbers of teachers employed in these schools, at 31st March, 1914 and 1922, respectively?

Mr. WOOD: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures referred to:

England and Wales.

Public elementary schools (including schools recognised under Section 25 of the Education Act, 1921, formerly Section 15 of the Education Act, 1902):



Total number on the Registers.
Total numbeer of teachers (all grades).


1913–14
6,047,503
169,561


1921–22
5,820,422
178,128

In 1913–14 there were 143,296 fee-paying pupils (included in the figure above), while in 1921–22 no fees were charged.

It would not be possible for me without disproportionate labour to state separately the number of teachers employed in fee-paying public elementary schools in 1913–14.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOANS).

Mr. HANCOCK: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education the amount of loans raised for purposes of elementary education by the education authorities of England and Wales for the years 1919, 1920 and 1921?

Mr. WOOD: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

Loans raised by Local Education Authorities in England and Wales for purposes of elementary education:



£


1918–1919
97,874


1919–1920
276,978


1920–1921
855,625

The figures for 1921–22 are not yet complete.

CERTIFICATED TEACHERS (MARRIAGE DISQUALIFICATION).

Mr. FOOT: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Education if there are any statistics available showing the number of local authorities who make marriage a disqualification for employment as certificated teachers?

Mr. WOOD: I regret that I possess no official statistics on this point.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very important law case on this point in London at the present time between the London County Council and the teachers?

TEACHERS (PAY).

Mr. FOOT: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education if there are any statistics available showing the number of certificated teachers who are employed at the rate of pay of uncertificated teachers?

Mr. WOOD: I regret that I do not possess the information asked for.

Mr. FOOT: Is the President of the Board of Education aware that there has
been an increase in the number of certificated teachers who are being employed at uncertificated rates of pay, and is that the general tendency throughout the country?

Mr. WOOD: No, I do not think so, but am not possession of sufficient information to say definitely.

Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman get that information and make it available to the House.

Mr. WOOD: I cannot do that without imposing elaborate labour on the local authorities.

Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question could be put to the local authorities and they could give the answer immediately?

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS (PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).

Mr. MOREL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government of the United States has made any suggestion to His Majesty's Government in regard to possible international procedure for controlling the private manufacture of and traffic in arms and munitions of war; and if His Majesty's Government will give favourable consideration to any suggestions of the kind which may at any time be put forward by the Government of the United States?

Mr. BALDWIN: No such suggestion has been made by the United States Government. As to the future, it would be contrary to the traditional practice to answer hypothetical questions.

Captain BERKELEY: Is it not a fact that the real difficulty in checking this traffic is that the United States Government will not adhere to the Convention of St. Germains, and will not His Majesty's Government make representations to the United States that they should do so?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH POLICY.

SIR PERCY COX'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether Sir
Percy Cox, on leaving Iraq, has been authorised to make any further announcement of policy; if so, what; and whether such policy has been discussed with, and agreed by, King Feisal and the Arab Government?

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have received an authentic report of a speech delivered by Sir Percy Cox on his return to Bagdad; and whether he had authority for saying that the British would no doubt remain in Iraq for many years, until Iraq could stand alone, or that perhaps in four years' time British responsibility in that country would end?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir T. Bennett) is that I have received no such Report.
An announcement has been made to-day by Sir Percy Cox in Bagdad, with the authority of His Majesty's Government, and with the full approval of King Feisal and his Government. The announcement was as follows:
It will be remembered that in the autumn of last year after a lengthy exchange of views, it was decided between the Governments of His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty King Feisal that a Treaty of Alliance should be entered into between His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the King of Iraq. This Treaty, which was signed on the 10th October, 1922, and the term of which was to be 20 years (subject to periodical revision at the desire of either party) provided for the establishment of an independent constitutional Government in Iraq, enjoying a certain measure of advice and assistance from Great Britain of the nature and extent indicated in the text of the Treaty itself and of subsidiary Agreements which were to be made there-under.
Since then the Iraq Government has made great strides along the path of independent and stable existence, and has been able successfully to assume administrative responsibility, and both parties being equally anxious that the commitments and responsibilities of His Majesty's Government in respect of Iraq should be terminated as soon as
possible, it is considered that the period of the Treaty in its present form can conveniently be shortened. In order to obviate the inconvenience of introducing Amendments into the body of a Treaty already signed, it has been decided to bring about the necessary modifications by means of a protocol which, like the Treaty itself, will be subject to ratification by the Constituent Assembly.
Accordingly a protocol has now been signed by the parties in the following terms:—
'It is understood between the High Contracting Parties that, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 18, the present Treaty shall terminate upon Iraq becoming a member of the League of Nations, and in any case not later than four years from the ratification of peace with Turkey. Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent a fresh agreement from being concluded with a view to regulate the subsequent relations between the High Contracting Parties; and negotiations for that object shall be entered into between them before the expiration of the above period.'
It will be noticed that under this protocol the Treaty in its present form is to terminate on the entry of Iraq into the League of Nations, or in four years, whichever may be earlier.
The position of Oraq as regards the League is that when the Treaty has been ratified, His Britannic Majesty will be bound under Article 6 to use his good offices to secure the admission of Iraq to membership of the League of Nations as soon as possible. His Majesty's Government will be in a position to take this step on the fulfilment of the two following essential conditions, namely, the delimitation of the frontiers of Iraq and the establishment of a stable Government in accordance with the Organic Law.
There is every reason to hope that both these conditions will be fulfilled at no distant date.
The effect of these arrangements is that, if the conditions are fulfilled, His Majesty's Government will be in a position to support an application by Iraq for membership of the League of Nations, which implies full and complete independence,
at any time within a maximum of four years from the ratification of peace with Turkey.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the deep appreciation of His Majesty's Government for the distinguished and devoted services of Sir Percy Cox and all the officers who have so loyally co-operated with him in circumstances of great difficulty, and in some cases in the past of personal danger. I feel sure that the House will agree that the step which has been taken to-day is a fitting culmination of the great work which Sir Percy Cox has performed during 39 years in the service of the Crown.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the date at which the long-deferred meeting of the Constituent Assembly of Iraq is to take place, at which this Treaty is to be ratified?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice, and I think it might be better, in view of the many issues involved, if this matter could be debated in the usual way in the House. That opportunity will arise whenever the Middle Eastern services are taken, for which there will be ample time before Whitsuntide, if the House so desires.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that this Constituent Assembly in Iraq is given the privilege of ratifying this Treaty, when this ancient Parliament is not to have the opportunity of saying "yea" or "nay"?

Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister has announced to the House that the ratification of this House will be invited for this Treaty?

Mr. BALDWIN: If he announced that, of course, that will be the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES LIQUOR LAW (BRITISH SHIPS).

Captain BERKELEY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the proposed action of the United States executive in consequence of the supreme court decision that liquor may not be brought inside the three-mile limit of territorial waters; and
what action the British Government will take if British ships carrying liquor are excluded from American ports?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part puts a hypothetical question, which I should not be asked to answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION CONVENTION (FRANCE AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet seen the text of the recently concluded Aviation Convention between France and Czechoslovakia; and can he state what steps are being taken to preserve rights on this market to the British aeroplane manufacturers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): I regret that I am not able to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on Thursday last. I have asked to be supplied with a copy of the Convention, but I have not yet received it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will repeat this question this day week.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR FLEETS (GREAT POWERS).

Mr. HARRIS: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what are the relative strengths of the air fleets of Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States of America; what are the number of aeroplanes each of these countries have now in commission and constructing, and what is their personnel; and whether he can state the number of pilots on the fighting strength of each country?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the air services of Great Britain and France, I would refer the hon. Member to the figures which I gave in this House in my speech on the Air Estimates on 14th March and also to my reply on 27th February last to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone.
As regards Italy, the air service is undergoing a process of reorganisation as a result of the recent decision of the Government of that country to establish a unified Air Force, which will absorb the separate air services of the Army and
Navy. Consequently, no reliable figures can at present be given.
As regards the United States of America, I understand that the number of serviceable aircraft in commission, excluding training machines, is approximately 500, while the number of pilots and observers in the air services is about 1,200.
As regards the number of aircraft actually under construction for the various air services, no figures are available for France, Italy, or the United States of America, and it is not in the public interest to give the numbers for this country.

Mr. HARRIS: Has the Air Ministry considered the calling of a conference on the same lines as the Washington Conference for limiting armaments with regard to the aeroplane fighting services?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes; a proposal of that kind has always been in my mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (REPORT).

Captain BENN: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Air when the next Report on civil aviation will be published?

Sir S. HOARE: I hope the Report will be ready for issue in about a month's time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT (CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the question of the disposal of the money collected by the French Customs posts in the Ruhr district on British goods entering the occupied territory has yet been settled; and what steps are now being taken by His Majesty's Government to pursue the question?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have nothing to add to previous replies.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now state what steps are being taken to pursue this question?

Mr. BALDWIN: The steps are continuing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the steps going forward or backward?

Mr. BALDWIN: In the direction of the goal, and, when it is reached, I hope to be able to give a more satisfactory answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will repeat this question this day week.

Captain BENN: Is any of the money which is taken from British traders coming to the British Exchequer?

Mr. BALDWIN: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the very great number of genuine applicants for reparation under the fund at the disposal of the Royal Commission for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action who are unable to get settlement owing to their claims having been lodged after the expiration of the time limit, i.e., 15th February, 1922; and whether he will take steps to meet these belated claims in cases where their genuineness could be proved?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply. I would refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool on 19th February, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the large number of genuine claims which are coming to light every week in this matter, is this question being re-considered?

Viscount WOLMER: It does not lie with the Government, but with the Royal Commission, and they have already expressed in their first report the course which they intend to pursue.

Captain BERKELEY: Is the Noble Lord aware that there were a great number of people involved in 1916 whose homes were wrecked, who have not only not had their claims settled, but have not even been decided?

Viscount WOLMER: Yes, I am aware of that. The Royal Commission decided to investigate the claims made up to a certain date, and there were 29,000 of those claims sent in time. The Commission is now considering other claims.

Captain BENN: Is not the Government responsible for fixing the conditions under which these people, injured in the War, are compensated, and is it not a fact that many of these sailors who were travelling abroad at the time did not know about the limitation of the date, and were precluded in that way from making a claim?

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member will find the terms of reference to the Royal Commission in the Report.

Mr. SHORT: Will the Noble Lord expedite the settlement of these claims, and get on with it?

Viscount WOLMER: We are doing all we can.

58. Sir J. BUTCHER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the failure of the German Government to carry out their Treaty obligations to pay compensation to the victims of air raids in this country, and the fact that the assessments of the Reparation Commission for the damage caused by these air raids have been largely scaled down owing to the sums voted by Parliament for meeting this damage proving insufficient, he will consider the propriety of providing further sums for meeting the admitted claims of the victims of the air raids?

Mr. BALDWIN: There is no such Treaty obligation as the hon. Member refers to, nor any assessment by the Reparation Commission. Parliament, however, agreed to provide a sum of £5,000,000 to be used as a fund out of which payments can be made to individuals as an act of grace on the part of His Majesty's Government. This is in addition to the insurance scheme which covered the greater number of such cases. Five million pounds was fixed as a final settlement at a time when expectations as to the reparations to be received from Germany were much higher than they are now and I fear I can hold out no prospect of its being increased.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES (IMPORT DUTY).

Viscount CURZON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether commercial motor vehicles exempted from the
payment of Import Duty are liable to periodical inspection to prevent their use by subsequent purchasers for the conveyance of passengers; and whether a register of vehicles and parts imported free of duty is kept for the purpose of such inspection?

Mr. BALDWIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question a register is kept of commercial vehicles imported free of duty if capable of being put to dutiable use. Motor car parts are only allowed to be imported free of duty if the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that they are either incapable of use in a dutiable vehicle, or, if not incapable of such use, are actually used in the manufacture or repair of an exempt vehicle.

Viscount CURZON: Are any steps being taken to check the use of such vehicles on importation?

Mr. BALDWIN: If my Noble Friend requires exact information, he had better put a question down.

SUPER-TAX.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated number of persons liable to Super-tax during the financial year ended 31st March last; and what was the estimated total income of these persons for Super-tax purposes?

Mr. BALDWIN: Complete figures in respect of the year 1922–23 are not yet available; but it is provisionally anticipated that the total number of persons liable to Super-tax for that year will be about 80,000, with an estimated total income of £470,000,000.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated number of persons with incomes of above £5,000 a year during the financial year ended 31st March last; and what was the estimated total income of these persons?

Mr. BALDWIN: Statistics for the year 1922–23 will not be available for some months. For the year 1921–22 it is estimated that there were 28,800 persons with incomes exceeding £5,000 with an estimated total income of £367,000,000.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give estimated figures for the financial year ended 31st March last showing the gross income brought under review for Income Tax and Super-tax, the estimated income liable to tax before deduction of personal allowances, etc., and the estimated total net income on which Income Tax was paid?

Mr. BALDWIN: Final estimates of the income dealt with for Income Tax purposes will not be available for some considerable time, but the following provisional estimates have been made:



Great Britain and Northern Ireland.



£


Gross income
2,900,000,000


Actual income liable to tax before deduction of personal or family allowances and reliefs
2,250,000,000


Total taxable income on which tax was paid
1,250,000,000


The total income assessable to Super-tax for the same year is provisionally estimated at £470,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS.

HOUSE PROPERTY.

Major MALONE: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the dissatisfaction amongst the taxpayers who have received notice of considerable increases in their assessments consequent on the new system of valuation for Income Tax, he will give instructions that the increase is to be limited to 15 per cent.?

Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that there is a new system of valuation of property for Income Tax purposes. The basis on which the annual values of property are fixed was explained in a reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Richmond. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of that reply, from which he will see that it is neither competent nor necessary for me to issue instructions in the sense indicated in his question.

Major MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that houses have been
assessed between 40 and 100 per cent. above their ordinary valuation for Income Tax purposes only and not for local rates; and is he also aware that 25 per cent. of the increase of the 40 per cent. was allowed to cover repairs on these houses for which the new owners are asked to pay?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that this assessment is being used to bring into operation the Inhabited House Duty on poor property which never paid the tax before?

Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be a new question, and there are other questions raising the same point.

Major MALONE: Can I have an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is anticipating a later question on the Paper.

Major MALONE: I have no connection with any other question.

Sir HENRY BUCKINGHAM: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated amount of increase in the nett assessment, Schedule A (England and Wales), in consequence of the revaluation under the Finance Act of 1922; and what amount of increased revenue based on such increased assessments he has provided for in the Budget Statement for 1923–4?

Mr. BALDWIN: Final estimates of the increase in the amount of actual income assessed under Schedule A, in consequence of the revaluation will not be available for about two years, but it has been provisionally forecast that the increase for Great Britain will amount to about £25,000,000. My Budget Estimate of Income Tax for 1923–24 was made after full consideration of all the relevant circumstances, including the revaluation, but I am not prepared to make separate estimates of its constituent factors.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instructions were issued by the Inland Revenue to inspectors of taxes to increase assessments on the revaluation of Schedule A by a percentage; and, if so, what percentages were mentioned in such instructions?

Mr. BALDWIN: The varying conditions governing different classes of property in different localities preclude the possibility of laying down any percentage of increase which could be of general application, and the Inland Revenue authorities have made no attempt to do so. The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is therefore in the negative, and the second part does not arise.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not the custom for the Income Tax Department to increase the assessment of cottage property by an equivalent of 40 per cent. of the net rental for Income Tax purposes?

Mr. BALDWIN: I was not aware of that.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that assessments under the new Schedule A valuation show increases of from 40 to 100 per cent.; and whether, since such increases are inequitable as being based upon a War-time, and therefore transitory and fictitious, value, he will inform the House upon what basis the officials prepared the new assessments?

Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the basis on which the revaluation of property is now being made for Income Tax purposes, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have to-day given to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Galbraith) on this subject. I would add that Section 32 of the Finance Act of last year, while providing that the Income Tax assessments for 1923–24 are to be based on the annual values as determined for 1922–23, provides also that any person who can show that the annual, value of any property for 1923–24 is less than the annual value so assessed, is entitled to have the assessment reduced to the value for 1923–24. Moreover, in the event of the annual value of any property decreasing during the period for which the valuations now being made may be continued in force, an appropriate reduction in the amount of the Income Tax assessment on such property would, in accordance with the established practice of the District Commissioners of Taxes, be admitted.
In the light of what I have stated, it will be seen that the broad objective of the present re-assessment is to secure
Income Tax in respect of income from property on the basis of the income actually derived from the property, and I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that there is no ground for the suggestion contained in the second part of his question.

Captain Viscount EDNAM: Is right hon. Gentleman aware that answer to which he has referred House has not been given?

Mr. BALDWIN: The question will probably be put another time.

Viscount EDNAM: On a point of Order. Can we have the answer to the question of the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Galbraith)?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to Question 69, which was not asked. Perhaps he will read the answer?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to read the answer to No. 69. The question was:

MR. GALBRAITH: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in many districts in East Surrey the new assessments for Schedule A are on the average from 50 to 100 per cent. over those previously existing; will he say what is the basis upon which the new assessments have been made and, in particular, whether any valuation was made for such purpose; and, if so, when and by whom?

The answer is:

The revaluation for Income Tax purposes which is now proceeding in accordance with the decision reached by Parliament last year, is being made under the old established law which, broadly speaking, provides that the annual value of property is the rack rent at which it is let or is worth to be let by the year. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in these circumstances the assessment is normally governed by the rent actually paid. As regards properties occupied by the owner, it is commonly the case that a fair estimate of the annual value is readily obtainable by reference to the actual rents paid for similar adjacent properties. In cases of special difficulty an expert valuation has been made and placed at the disposal of the Local Commissioners by whom the assessments are made.

Mr. GOULD: Does not the Chancellor think it rather unfair that the assessments should be made at a time of extreme difficulty, when prices are fictitious, and values placed high against those who want places for occupancy?

Mr. BALDWIN: The short answer to that is that there ought to have been valuations in 1915 and in 1920. It may be that these are times of extreme difficulty, but people for some years have been paying less Income Tax than they ought to have paid.

Mr. BECKER: Can we have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that these assessments are made after the actual inspection of the property, or are they made on a flat-rate scale by inspectors who have never actually seen the property which they are assessing?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think I made it plain in my last answer that the assessments are made principally by the local commissioners who, I think, have ample knowledge for the purpose.

Mr. BECKER: Yes, but have they actually inspected the house property?

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITION FACTORY (HACKNEY MARSHES).

Captain ERSKINE BOLST: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the restoration of the land at present occupied by a munition factory on the Hackney Marshes, especially in view of the advent of summer; and whether, in view of the statement of the chairman of the parks committee of the London County Council with regard to the expenditure incurred by that authority, he will endeavour, as soon as possible, to come to an agreement with this authority and start the work forthwith?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have caused inquiries to be made of the clerk to the parks committee of the London County Council with regard to the statement said to have been made by the chairman, but have not succeeded in identifying it. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would be good enough to send me a copy. I am unable at the moment to add anything to the previous answers
that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given on this subject, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, so far as the Disposal and Liquidation Commission is concerned, everything possible is being done to hasten a settlement, and I understand that a letter addressed by them to the London County Council on 1st February last is now under active discussion at the Council, to whom several reminders have been sent.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONCRETE SHIP "CRETEPOND."

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that one of the concrete ships, the "Cretepond," built for the Government during the War, has been lying on the mud in Cardiff docks for several years, useless, and now unsaleable, with a caretaker on board drawing £5 per week wages; how much this vessel cost to build; how much has been paid, and is due, for dock dues and caretaker's wages; and what steps the Disposal Board took to stop this expenditure?

Viscount WOLMER: I have been asked to reply. The concrete barge "Cretepond," which was built for the Government, has been lying in Cardiff docks for several years, as stated in the question. She was abandoned to the underwriters as a constructive total loss, but liability was disputed, and the matter will have to be settled by the Courts. The cost of the vessel is included with that of other vessels built—or partly built and cancelled—and cannot be given separately. £1,615 has been paid in dock dues and £303 for caretaking. £30,000 and expenses are being claimed against the underwriters. All possible steps are being taken to have the case heard in the near future.

Sir J. REMNANT: Could not the Noble Lord take this £5 per week, and put it to a more useful purpose?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think so much money has been spent, but I have asked for further information. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. GOULD: Will the Noble Lord accept my assurance that £5 a week is being paid to the caretaker?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

RATES.

Sir ARTHUR MARSHALL: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the assessable value of the agricultural land of Great Britain; what amount of rates was paid in respect of such land in the last year for which statistics are available by the occupiers: and what amount was paid in relief of rates on agricultural land by the Treasury and by the occupiers of rateable hereditaments, other than agricultural land, respectively?

Lord E. PERCY: The assessable value of agricultural land in April, 1922, was £12,907,000. There are no returns showing separately the amount of rates paid by the occupiers of such land; but it has been estimated, from the particulars available, that as regards rates, to which the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, applies, the occupiers of agricultural land now contribute at the rate of about £5,500,000 per annum. With respect to the last part of the question, I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham on the 26th April. I may say, however, that the annual grant under the Act of 1896 amounts to £1,323,000. This reply refers to England and Wales. As regards Scotland, I would suggest that the hon. Member should address a question to the Scottish Office.

CONCILIATION COMMITTEES.

Major EDMONDSON: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of counties in which conciliation committees exist and are operating satisfactorily; whether he proposes to call such committees into existence where there are none; whether the method of election will remain as now when the decisions of these bodies are registered; and when legal effect will be given to this new development?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): Agreements made by conciliation committees are in operation in 16 counties, but committees to the number of 63 have been set up in every county in England and Wales, and as, in several counties, meetings of the committees are being arranged, I hope the
number of agreements in force will soon be increased. With regard to the third and fourth parts of the question, the terms of the Bill dealing with the compulsory registration of conciliation committee agreements are at present under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to say when it will be introduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any of the Allied countries that owe money to this country have made any suggestions to His Majesty's Government with regard to funding their debts, or have made any attempts to pay even the interest due on these debts?

Mr. BALDWIN: As regards war debts, His Majesty's Government has hitherto agreed to renew Treasury Bills as they fell due, accepting further bills for the amount of the interest. Interest has been paid in cash on small loans to Greece and the Belgian Congo. The Belgian war debt was transferred by the Treaty of Versailles to Germany. No proposals for funding the debts have been received.
Interest is being paid on relief loans by Czecho-slovakia, and negotiations are in progress with Poland, Serbia and Rumania. These loans, which constitute a first charge on reparation receipts by the Allies, are repayable in January, 1925. Belgium is paying interest on her reconstruction loan of £9,000,000.
As stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the 23rd April, Allied Governments are being pressed to pay sums due in respect of supplies of stores, etc., by British Government Departments after the War period, and a considerable proportion of such debts has already been paid in cash.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is receiving any interest on the money due from France, or whether he expects at all to get any money from France?

Mr. BALDWIN: As regards the first part of the question, the answer is in the negative; the second part is hypothetical.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any interest is being paid on war debts, as distinct from debts which have arisen since the War?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should like notice of that, but my impression is no.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 80.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that an old age pensioner with an allotment of 20 poles bringing in a profit of 26s. a year receives 2s. a week less pension for himself and the same amount less for his wife, with the effect that a computed profit of 6d. a week deprives him and his wife of 4s. a week, he will consider an amendment of the law so as to prevent income from allotments being a disqualification for the receipt of full pension?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I cannot undertake to amend the Old Age Pensions Acts. The hon. Member will be aware that the Departmental Committee of 1919 saw insuperable difficulties in making any equitable distinction between means derived from different sources.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that when an old age pensioner has a few chickens, the value of the eggs is taken into consideration?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING (OVERTON ROAD, KIRKCALDY).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that the property on the Overton Road housing site, Kirkcaldy, has no fencing erected; that some of the houses have been occupied since August, 1922; and that the local authority place the responsibility for the delay on the Scottish Board of Health; and what action he proposes taking to expedite the erection of the fences?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Scottish Board of Health are not, however, responsible for any delay which has occurred in the erection of the fencing. The local authority did not submit their proposals for the fencing of the property to the Board until 28th March and 5th April of this year. After revision, the
proposals were approved, subject to certain amendments, and returned to the local authority on 23rd April. It is now for the local authority to obtain tenders for the work, which, it may be hoped, will be put in hand very soon.

TUBERCULOSIS (GRANTS).

Mr. WHEATLEY: 86.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health what was the total amount of grant for the treatment of tuberculosis allowed to Scottish local authorities for 1922–23; what is the amount estimated for 1923–24; and is he aware that any reduction on the 1922–23 amount would be considered to be a breach of faith with the local authorities, who were encouraged to go ahead with schemes on the understanding that 50 per cent. of the expenditure would be met by Government grant?

Captain ELLIOT: The total amount of grant paid to Scottish local authorities in the year 1922–23 in aid of their expenditure on the treatment of tuberculosis was £289,998 15s. 6d. The provision made in the 1923–24 Estimates of the Scottish Board of Health shows no reduction on that figure, the amount provided for payment of grant in 1923–24 being £290,000.

REPARATIONS (GERMAN OFFER).

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government have considered their policy regarding the Note on Reparations and Security handed to them and the Allies by Germany; whether they propose to communicate their views on the subject to France, Belgium and Italy with a view to negotiations, taking opportunity of referring to the Allied debts as part of the settlement; and when he can make a full announcement on the subject to the House?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Note from the German Government was handed by the German Ambassador to the Foreign Secretary yesterday afternoon, and I feel sure the House will appreciate that, in view of the short time which has elapsed since its presentation, I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. MacDONALD: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to make a statement on the subject?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would rather that my hon. Friend did not press me for the moment. I only got this question at half-past two, 10 minutes before I entered the House, and have not yet been able to consult any of my colleagues. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a question down.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not propose to put the question of which I have given notice, but, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may we take it that His Majesty's Government have no part in the Press campaign in this country, attempting to judge the issue before there has been proper time to consider it or discuss it with our Allies?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is an innuendo which ought not to have been made.

Mr. PONSONBY: In view of the fact that the French Government is likely to answer the Note this afternoon or tomorrow morning, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider this as a matter of great urgency?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know anything at all about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT FACTORY, GRETNA.

Dr. CHAPPLE: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether negotiations for the immediate sale of Gretna factory are pending; whether he is in personal touch with these negotiations; and what steps he is taking to see that the interests are being considered of those in Gretna who have suffered so much by the refusal of the Government to follow the advice of the Pearson Expert Committee?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): I have not received from the hon. Member any notice of his question.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I sent a letter this morning, at the same time as I sent it to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's notice reached me very late. I would ask hon. Members, when they have Private Notice Questions, to let me have them before noon.

Dr. CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. I sent it at eleven o'clock this morning.

Mr. GWYNNE: I did not leave the War Office until after half-past one, and no notice had then been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

ADDITIONAL CHARGES (PACKETS FROM FRANCE).

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 88.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, and, if so, on what grounds, certain postal packets accepted by the French post office as fully paid for transmission to England are now only delivered by our Post Office on payment of double letter rate; whether the French postal authorities have been communicated with on the subject; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the annoyance and inconvenience caused by the additional charges imposed on such packets in this country?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I assume that the hon. and learned Member refers to packets which have been irregularly accepted in France for transmission to this country by the sample post, although they contravene the regulations of that post. I explained the position with regard to these packets in my reply to the hon. Member for Darwen (Sir F. Sanderson) on the 24th of last month. I have drawn the attention of the French post office to the matter

Mr. SHORT: Has the hon. Baronet had a reply from the French Government on this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not yet.

PRINTED MATTER.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 89.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will revise the Regulations regarding the printed-postage rates under which, in order to make use of 1½d. postage, there must be more than 20 in a packet and handed in before 5 p.m. for delivery next morning?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no Regulation as to the number of printed papers which must be contained in a packet. The hon. Member probably has in mind the rule that packets containing
circulars in imitation typewriting can be posted as printed papers only if not less than 20 packets are handed in at one time. I regret I am unable to modify that rule.

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE (HOUR OF POSTING).

Mr. DOYLE: 90.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that business in the Newcastle-on-Tyne exchange is not completed until 5 p.m., while the latest hour for posting letters for the South without extra postage is 5.30 p.m.; and whether, since the half-hour interval is insufficient time to enable the business community to complete their correspondence, he can see his way to extending the hour of postage?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am having inquiry made, and will write to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.

Mr. GOULD: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for New castle East (Mr. A. Henderson) a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, does he propose to move tomorrow the Second Reading of the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and whether, considering the importance of the Measure to all sections of the House, and that the Bill has only this afternoon been placed in the hands of hon. Members, he will postpone the Second Reading to some future date, in order to give an opportunity for perusal?

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I regret that there has been some delay in the circulation of the Bill and it has only been available since noon to-day. I am afraid, although it is not a justification, that this is not the first time that has occurred. We cannot comply with the hon. Member's request to postpone the Second Reading Debate because that would be forfeiting what we have obtained by the ballot and the chance will not return until next Session.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: May I ask your ruling, Sir, in this matter. Here we have a Bill of 47 pages which is only available to-day, and we are asked to take the Second Reading to-morrow. The right hon.
Gentleman will have other opportunities of introducing the Bill, and I submit that the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) and others who think as he does are entitled to press this to a Division as to whether it shall or shall not be taken.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not a fact that Mr. Speaker Lowther always ruled that even if a Bill is not printed he could not rule it out of order on the Second Reading? It is very inconvenient, but he always ruled that it was not possible for him to rule it out of order, and on more than one occasion when I have raised the point he has said "if the hon. Member will go into the Vote Office, he will find that half an hour ago the Bill was printed, and under those circumstances nothing can be done." I think my hon. Friend's motive is not that he objects to the Bill, but because he is interested in the Bill that follows it.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This Bill was ordered to be printed on 16th February, nearly three months ago, and I submit to you that you should protect the Members of the House from what is a gross discourtesy, whether it is intentional or not, in keeping back the issue of this Bill and then asking us to have the Second Reading the very next day. If the Government had done this with any Bill they introduced, they would have been overwhelmed with protests.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will deal with the point of Order. My answer has been anticipated, almost in words, by what has been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It would not be out of order to move the Second Reading of the Bill to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has apologised for the inconvenience, and it may be that the late production of the Bill may affect my views when we come to the close of the proceedings to-morrow. A Bill should be in the hands of Members in sufficient time for them to consult the people interested.

Mr. GOULD: May I say that I am not actuated in bringing this question forward by the second Bill. I am considerably concerned about this Bill, because
we have had no opportunity whatever of considering it.

Mr. ADAMS: Is the hon. Member not aware that the Bill is based upon the Report of a Government Committee, which was submitted to the House two years ago?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. MacDONALD: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what business there is for next week, and could he at the same time announce when the Whitsuntide Recess will begin and when it will end?

Mr. BALDWIN: The business will be as follows:
Monday: Special Constables Bill, Report and Third Reading; Explosives Bill [Lords,] Second Reading; Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Bill, Second Reading; Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Bill [Lords], Second Reading; Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill, Report and Third Reading.
Tuesday: Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Bill, Third Reading.
Wednesday: The Motion respecting the Draft Conventions and Recommendations adopted at the Third and Fourth Sessions of the International Labour Conference; and, if there is any time available before 8.15 p.m., other Bills on the Paper not taken on Monday.
Thursday: Supply—Foreign Office Vote.
I hope it may be possible to adjourn on Thursday the 17th instant, and reassemble on Tuesday the 29th.

Motion made, and Question,
That the Proceedings on the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Bill be exempted, at this day's sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 159.

Division No. 126.]
AYES.
[4.1 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Furness, G. J.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Archer-Shee, Lieut-Colonel Martin
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Garland, C. S.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Gates, Percy
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Goff, Sir R. Park
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gould, James C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Paget, T. G.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Pease, William Edwin


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Barnston, Major Harry
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Penny, Frederick George


Becker, Harry
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Halstead, Major D.
Perring, William George


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Pielou, D. P.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Berry, Sir George
Harrison, F. C.
Privett, F. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hawke, John Anthony
Raine, W.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Blundell, F. N.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Remnant, Sir James


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Rentoul, G. S.


Brass, Captain W.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Bruford, R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)


Bruton, Sir James
Hood, Sir Joseph
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butcher, Sir John George
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Collingwood
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Button, H. S.
Hume, G. H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hurd, Percy A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Shipwright, Captain D.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Singleton, J. E.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Skelton, A. N.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clayton, G. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Sparkes, H. W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Cope, Major William
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lorden, John William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lorimer, H. D.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lougher, L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Tubbs, S. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wallace, Captain E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McNeill, Ronald (Kenf, Canterbury)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Ednam, Viscount
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Waring, Major Walter


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Manville, Edward
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Ellis, R. G.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Wells, S. R.


England, Lieut-Colonel A.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Whitla, Sir William


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Willey, Arthur


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Winterton, Earl


Foreman, Sir Henry
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Wise, Frederick


Forestier-Walker, L.
Murchison, C. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)




Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Gibbs.




NOES.


Adams, D.
Harbord, Arthur
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Phillipps, Vivian


Attlee, C. R.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Pringle, W. M. R.


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richards, R.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Riley, Ben


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Bonwick, A.
Herriotts, J.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hill, A.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Briant, Frank
Hinds, John
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Brotherton, J.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Rose, Frank H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hogge, James Myles
Salter, Dr. A.


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Scrymgeour, E.


Burgess, S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Simpson, J. Hope


Cairns, John
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Snell, Harry


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, F.
Thornton, M.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Tout, W. J.


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Turner, Ben


Ede, James Chuter
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wallhead, Richard C.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Fairbairn, R. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Falconer, J.
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Foot, Isaac
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Webb, Sidney


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Weir, L. M.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Westwood, J.


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Wheatley, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Millar, J. D.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morel, E. D.
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Muir, John W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Nichol, Robert
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hancock, John George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Morgan




Jones.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Mr. F. GRAY: May I ask your ruling, Sir, as to the right of hon. Members to put questions and receive replies with reference to the affairs of Northern Ireland, notwithstanding the powers conferred upon the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and to call attention to the facts, first, that Northern Ireland has representation in this House; secondly, that powers are reserved to this country under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920: thirdly, that monies are voted by this House to
defray in whole or in part the expenses of services transferred to Northern Ireland, and, fourthly, that there is reserved the power of taxation and an interest in the profits of taxation in Northern Ireland for the benefit of the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. SPEAKER: In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say the fact that Northern Ireland sends Members to this House does not affect the question. With regard to those subjects which have been delegated to the Government of Northern Ireland, questions must be asked of Ministers in Northern Ireland, and not
in this House. In the case of those subjects which were reserved to this Parliament, questions can be addressed here to the appropriate Ministers—for instance, the President of the Board of Trade, the Postmaster-General, etc. The policy of voting money here in aid of Irish services may be discussed here, but, subject to the responsibility that attaches to the Chairman of Committees in that matter, I would say that this right does not cover matters of administration for which a Minister in Northern Ireland is responsible. We give a subvention in aid of police, but outside the metropolitan area the administration and responsibility are local.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).

Sir PARK GOFF reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPORTED.

Mitcham Urban District Council Bill,

Rawmarsh Urban District Council Bill,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Morris and Mr. Gershom Stewart; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Newman and Mr. Strauss.

Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed him to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Housing, etc. (No. 2) Bill; and Mr. Ponsonby to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills
(in respect of the Illegal Trawling (Scotland) Penalties Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

London County Council (General Powers) Bill, without Amendment.

Port of London (Finance) Bill, with an Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Abergavenny, Cardigan, Lindsey, Sedgley, Stoke-on-Trent, and West Hartlepool." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Commissioners of the River Wear Watch with respect to the levying of tolls, rates, and charges; to alter the qualification of a commissioner; and for other purposes." [River Wear Watch Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Oakham Gas Company, Limited, to supply electricity; and for other purposes." [Oakham Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

River Wear Watch Bill [Lords],

Oakham Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — RENT RESTRICTIONS (NOTICES OF INCREASE) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Effect of notices to increase rent under principal Act):

(1) Where notice of intention to increase rent has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been served on a tenant in conformity with Sub-section (2) of Section three of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), and a notice to terminate the tenancy was necessary in order to make such increase effective, the notice of intention to increase the rent shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect as if it were or had been also a notice to terminate the existing tenancy on the day immediately preceding the day as from which the increase is or was first to take effect, or on the earliest day thereafter on which if it had been a notice to terminate the tenancy, it would have been effective for that purpose, and in the latter case a notice of increase served before the passing of this Act shall be deemed to have had effect as if such earliest date had been specified in the notice as the date as from which the increase was to take effect:

Provided that—

(a) nothing in this Act shall entitle a landlord after the passing of this Act to recover from a tenant, in respect of any period before the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, the increase of rent made valid by this Act, or any sums which have been recovered from the landlord before that date by means of deductions from rent or otherwise, or any rent due before that date which has not been paid by reason of such deductions having been made therefrom; but Section fourteen, Sub-section (1), of the principal Act shall not apply to an increase of rent made valid by this Act which was paid by, or recovered from, a tenant prior to the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two;
(b) nothing in this Act shall affect the right to enforce any judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction given before the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, or render recoverable any sum paid under such a judgment.

(2) Any increase of rent made valid by this Act is hereinafter referred to as a validated increase of rent.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "rent" ["Where notice of intention to increase rent"], to insert the words
on account of an increase in rates.
Some of us on these benches are greatly surprised that the Government have been audacious enough to bring this Measure before the House at all after the very severe treatment the Bill received at the hands of the Committee upstairs. But the Government have deemed it advisable to bring the Bill again before the House, and I think it is only proper that we on these benches should once again make a general protest against the whole provisions of the Measure. We object to the Bill because it provides retrospective legislation. We say that retrospective legislation is bad in quality, wrong in principle, and dangerous in character; and we are informed that this Bill is unique in the history of British law. In fact, I would describe it as the illegitimate child of the Mother of Parliaments.
The Amendment deals with a concrete point. We desire to reduce the problem contained in the Bill to that of rates only. Section 3 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, permitted certain increases of rent, provided that proper notice was given by the landlord to the tenant, including a notice to quit. This question, as many of the problems that have come before the House of Commons recently, affects Scotland very intimately. So far as I understand the provisions of the Measure, Scotland will be affected very much more than England and Wales. In most cases, in England and Wales, the printers of legal forms were keen enough, and the lawyers of England and Wales, apparently were more wideawake than the lawyers in Scotland. The forms printed in England and Wales and on which notification was given that the rent was to be increased did contain a Notice to Quit. There was, however, a general failure in Scotland to comply with the law, and the Government in this Bill are simply subsidising the ignorance of property owners of Scotland and the carelessness of Scottish lawyers. We had a case, as the House knows, in the House of Lords which determined very definitely that the landlords in Scotland, and in England if there were any, must be penalised for their carelessness, and then
the Government bring forward this Bill in order to get the landlords out of their difficulty. We say that a Government which does that sort of thing, subsidising ignorance and carelessness, is not doing the right thing, and I hope that in the future the Government itself will be penalised in some form or other for what they are doing to-day.
After making our protest in that way we have decided to try to compromise. The Attorney-General unfortunately failed us in assisting in any compromise Amendments which we moved upstairs. He did give us one slight concession, which I understand Members of his party intend to-day to try to take away. The increase of 40 per cent. in rent which is allowed by the 1920 Act is made up of 25 per cent. to cover the increased cost of repairs, 10 per cent. to enable the owner to pay the increased rate of interest of 1 per cent. allowed to a mortgagee under the Act, and 5 per cent. to give a landlord an increased rate of interest of 1 per cent. on his own capital. Our Amendment reduces the problem to this. Whereas we have a general objection to any landlord who failed to give notice to quit receiving anything at all, yet, as the Government which has a majority has decided that this Bill must go through, we desire to offer a compromise, and we are willing if this Bill becomes law to allow such a landlord an increase of rent so far as the rates go, but we wish to stop there.
We have strong reasons for putting forward this Amendment. I give my own case to illustrate our first reason. In 1913 I lived in a house at 11s. 6d. a week rent. That rent was increased to 19s. 6d. Strange to say, when I paid 11s. 6d., the landlord did all the repairs and decorations. But when the increase of 8s. was made, he never did any decorations or repairs at all. We object to landlords receiving the 40 per cent. increase when we know that they are not using that money as it was intended by law that they should use it. That is the meaning of our Amendment. The landlord in England, Scotland, and Wales was not only supposed to decorate and clean and repair the house, but he was allowed so much increase of rent to cover the cost of the increase in rates as well. We know full
well what the increase of rates was in every town in this country. We are not sure what the increase in interest was, and we are not satisfied that any person can prove what the cost of repairs or decorations made would be. The increase in rates is a known amount. We can say with regard to Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, or anywhere else, what the increase in rates was. We are willing to meet the Government by saying that if they will accept our Amendment we shall allow the Bill to pass, but unless the Government agree to our Amendment we shall oppose the Bill, as we did before it went upstairs, and as we opposed it upstairs. We are definitely opposed to the Measure; it is a bad Measure. It is a gift to careless landlords and ignorant lawyers, and I trust that before the day is out we shall show the Government that we mean what we say.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not anticipate the Third Reading debate. There will be a day next week for the Third Reading.

Mr. GROVES: I beg to second the Amendment.
When the Bill went into Committee I had an open mind on the subject. The Labour party have been called class representatives, but in this particular case the position is reversed, because as I listened to the speeches in Committee, my honest view of this Measure was that it is legislation directed against the tenant. I represent a poor district of West Ham, and the reason that I am so concerned about this Amendment is that I feel that if the Government will accept the position that the Bill will only permit landlords to demand that degree of rent increase which is pro rata with the increase of local rates, and exclude landlords from demanding any additional amount, which is presumably in proportion to some degree of structural alterations or maintenance of the house in a fit state, then the position would be a fair one. I am no more opposed to the landlord receiving a fair rental for his house than I am opposed to a baker receiving a fair price for his bread. We on these benches do not assume the position that we want to be rent free, but if in my borough a baker sells bread which obviously is adulterated
to the extent of not being fit for human consumption, our medical officer immediately takes action, and the purveyor of the bread is brought before the local magistrate and condemned. A local baker was fined £20 and costs for this offence.
My borough does prove the actual need for the Amendment. When I listened in Committee to the speeches of Scottish Members I came to the conclusion that the housing conditions in their area are worse than the conditions in the East End of London, and when I listened last evening to the speech of the Minister for Health, and his details of the housing conditions in Scotland, I made up my mind that the conditions there must be worse than those in West Ham. But the official document issued by my borough contains sufficient evidence to prove that our Amendment is moderate, and in this very large industrial centre there is no need to argue that the owners of property should receive a single penny in addition to the local increase of rates. Even on that point I think that we on these benches are granting something in not seriously opposing that position, because it is the housing conditions in my borough which tend to increase the local rates for social service. On the medical department we are spending a great deal of money, as the Minister of Health knows by his experience. This is obviously the direct result of the bad housing conditions. Neither side of the House will deny that general position.
In the Housing Bill the Minister of Health is assuming the position that the Government and the local authority are endeavouring to work side by side with one another for the construction of new houses and the clearance of slums. In my borough there are 48,302 houses. We cannot inspect all these houses every year. The number inspected in 1922 was 10,413 and the medical officer in West Ham has certified that out of that number 8,413 were found to be not reasonably fit in all respects for human habitation. That is over 80 per cent. I think that details would be more appropriate at a later stage in this discussion, but I use this as an argument, that there is no justification at the moment for the landlords to claim and the Government to provide the payment to the property owners of an amount of money presumably
for the maintenance of the houses in a fit state. If we can prove that the houses which are occupied by the poorer classes of this large industrial borough are really unfit then the case of the Government for an increase of rent on the ground that the houses have been made fit disappears. On those grounds I second the Amendment.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I listened with the greatest possible pleasure to the two speeches made from the Labour Benches upon this question. The chief reason why I did so is because they show a new enthusiasm on the part of Members from districts other than Scotland for Scottish interests. Both of them spoke with an accent which does not come from North of the Tweed. Both of them say that this Bill, above all, affects Scotland, and in particular the great city from which I have the honour to come. It is true that we in Scotland are a laconic and somewhat tongue-tied race, especially those of us who come from Glasgow constituencies, and we are grateful to these two representatives of English constituencies for the interest which they are taking in this topic. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did it on grounds which seemed to me to be entirely unjustified by the speech which he made. He said he is willing to allow some increase of rent to be granted in respect of rates, because it is a known quantity, but the speech which he made in support of that theory was grounded on the fact that landlords who failed to serve the appropriate notice ought not to obtain any increase of rent at all, because he said we were simply subsidising careless landlords and inefficient lawyers. I am not in favour of subsidising either of these classes; I do not belong to either of them. But his speech was entirely subverted by the speech of the Seconder of the Amendment, who laid it down as the foundation of his principle that, provided the article was supplied, he was not unwilling that payment should be made for it.
Let us take the case with which we are dealing. You have two tenements side by side, and in each case you have tenants occupying the houses. In each case the tenants have the advantage of a roof over their heads and such accommodation as the house gives. But in the one case the landlord has failed to serve
a particular notice and in the other case notice has been served. In each case the tenants have had the same article. Yet the Mover of the Amendment suggests that the rent should be taken in the one case and should be denied in the other. The two speeches cannot stand together. I suggest that we should have some regard to the equities of a situation which no one anticipated would ever arise. The whole question has arisen because of a particular form of notice which, for the most part, in Scotland, it was not thought necessary to serve. Yet because of that trivial circumstance we are asked to adopt a principle which is to deny to the landlord rent in a case where such notice was not served, and to give him the right to exact the rent for the same kind of accommodation where notice was served. The House should deal with realities. I hope we shall get forward with this Bill instead of dealing with such comparatively small matters.

Mr. MAXTON: I would not have intervened had it not been for the speech of my colleague the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). We Glasgow Members are very delighted to welcome his somewhat belated intervention in the proceedings on this Bill, considering the interest that has been taken in it in his own constituency and in neighbouring constituencies in Glasgow. All along from the Labour Benches we have asked the Government to consider, not the minutiae of the matter, but the equity of the case, and the equity of the case, we hold, was propounded by the House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, I do not arrogate to myself the right to criticise the highest Court in our land. I believe that justice and equity are occasionally to be found together and that they were so found in this case. We would be quite prepared to support the right hon. Member for Hillhead if he would agree that the Bill should be rejected entirely and the matter be fought out as between any particular tenant and any particular landlord in the Scottish Law Courts. The right hon. Gentleman said it is unfair that the landlord owning this property shall receive the rent, and that the landlord owning neighbouring property shall not receive the rent for exactly the same type of house in the same condition. But that is exactly what this Bill is laying
down—that the landlord of this particular tenement shall receive the rent and that the landlord next door shall not receive it.
Whereas up to now this kind of thing has not had legislative sanction, should this Bill go through it will have the imprimatur of this House of Commons upon it. We know, of course, that the right hon. Member for Hillhead comes from a very exceptional constituency in Glasgow. Perhaps he has a greater security of tenure in that division than has any other Member of this House, but at the most it cannot be extended for more than a year or two, and, in case there may be any difficulties arising, he may take this as an official notice to quit. I was informed that even in that favoured community of Glasgow one of his constituents fainted in the Sheriff Court on an afternoon of last week when the Sheriff told her that she would have to pay a certain proportion of her rent, as she was over the nine months in arrears. It was a pathetic sight to see the lady from that division of Glasgow, dressed in her rather superior garments, among the poor people from the east end, collapse at the terrible thought that she now had to pay rent. That was only one case brought to my notice. Probably there are thousands of the same kind where people are concealing their real difficulties under a decent outward appearance. I rather fancy that I am incurring the risk to which Mr. Speaker referred earlier on.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. We cannot have to-day speeches that would be appropriate to the Third Reading, which will be taken on Tuesday next. On the Report stage, we have to deal strictly with the points of each Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: I raised the matter with you, Mr. Speaker, in order that the right hon. Member for Hillhead, whose Parliamentary experience is much greater than mine, would realise the enormity of his offence in making a Third Reading speech on the Report stage. I am not on my feet to deal with that, but simply to support the Amendment. The Amendment does not strike at the general principle of the Bill, but attempts to make the Bill—I was going to say rational, but really it is impossible to describe any provision of this Bill or any suggested Amendment of this most fundamentally irrational Bill as
rational. The Amendment does make the Bill a little less irrational, and for that reason I have pleasure in supporting it.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I am not quite certain whether it would be in order now to discuss the retrospective nature of the Bill. I thought that the point ought to be discussed on an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). As I am not in favour of the retrospective nature of the Bill, I would like to explain why I cannot support the Government on this point. I want to know whether I am to speak now or whether I am to wait for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet is perfectly right. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley raises that particular point. I had some doubt whether the subject ought not to be reserved for the Third Reading, but I came to the conclusion to allow a short Debate on the subject to-day as well as next Tuesday, if it were so desired. It is not in order to raise that point on the present Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): Hon. Members opposite show such a desire for a Third Reading Debate to-night, that I am almost tempted to suggest that we may get the Third Reading as well as the Report stage and so put hon. Members out of their misery. That, however, might involve rather a late sitting, and I propose now to say only a few words against the Amendment. The Mover of the Amendment began by reminding us of what he called the severe treatment which it had in Committee. This particular Amendment was the first to be moved in Committee, and after a Debate which extended over 40 pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, it was negatived by a majority of more than two to one. Similarly severe treatment will satisfy the Government this evening. I would like the House to understand what is the effect of the Amendment, because I am not sure that the Mover and Seconder have made it clear. The principal Act, the Act of 1920, lays down four heads under which a landlord is entitled to increased rent—structural alterations, rates, 15 per cent. for the increase of value, and 25 per cent.
for repairs. The effect of this Amendment would be to say that such landlords as had failed to give notice to quit at the same time as they gave statutory notice of increase of rent, should not get any of the increase, except the one in respect of rates. What logical ground there can be for that contention I have not been able to understand.
The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment said that there are many cases in which houses are unfit for habitation and in respect of which the landlords have failed in their duty to carry out proper repairs. That would be a very good reason for refusing a landlord any increase in respect of repairs. The hon. Members either forgot or did not appreciate that the Bill provides that in such a case the landlord shall not get an increase in respect of repairs. In Clause 3 it is expressly stated that wherever the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation or otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair, the landlord is not to get the increase so long as that state of affairs continues. Therefore, we are imposing upon the landlord a more stringent penalty than that which the hon. Members propose, because we are saying that, so long as the landlord fails in his duty to keep a house in proper repair, he shall not get any increase, whereas the Amendment provides that, because some landlords do not keep their houses in proper repair, no landlord shall get any increase except in respect of rates. That does not seem to me to be a logical proposal.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: There is something more in the Amendment than the learned Attorney-General has suggested. It may be true that in Committee, after 40 pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT were spoken, the Attorney-General was relieved from his difficulties by a Division, and it may be that to-day he expects the same form of relief. We have all known in this House and in Standing Committee what a very happy relief a Division is to the Government, and that, so for from regarding it as a seal of victory, those of us who have read those 40 pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT will regard the Division as a form of relief rather than as a triumphant ending of a good Debate. We have had it again here to-day. What does the Attorney-General and, in that connection, the right hon. Member for
Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) say? It is very difficult to leave out, altogether, the general setting and the foundation of the Bill. That, of course, will have to be discussed next Tuesday, but we must just found ourselves upon it. The Bill says that certain mistakes have been declared to have been made in the legal operations to secure rent. The House of Lords have come to that decision, and this Bill is going to rectify what the Government regard as a substantial injustice done. Quite obviously, that rectification can be made only by some kind of compromise. There is a compromise to be made somehow, and somewhere. The right hon. Member for Hillhead very properly points out that this is a bad compromise, and that if you have two tenants, enjoying exactly the same quality and quantity of occupancy, one of them should not be allowed to get off while the other is compelled to pay. That is the proposition he laid down this afternoon. That being so, the right hon. Gentleman is bound, I think, to follow us in the Division Lobby rather than the Government, so that his vote will not be cast, I suppose, in the majority that is about to be cast.

Sir R. HORNE: The Bill does not go far enough. That is my abjection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then vote against it."] Half a loaf is better than no bread.

Mr. MacDONALD: Possibly. I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman if he says, "I abandon the whole principle altogether, and take my stand upon convenience." But, taking his stand upon convenience, it does not lie with him to lay down this fine-sounding principle that equal tenants should receive equal treatment which, as a matter of fact, he has no intention of giving. What is the compromise suggested in this Measure? The right hon. and learned Attorney-General says if tenants have refused to pay they should not be asked to pay, and if they have paid, then there is no redress. In any event, I think we have a more rational suggestion to make than that. We say that the compromise ought to be made in some way such as this. The landlord, whether his rent exaction is just or unjust, has had to pay rates. In accordance with the principal Act, one of the reasons why rents may be legally increased is the payment of rates; and
there are two or three other things, which the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted, and which I will not tire the House by quoting again.
Our suggestion is, divide the reasons for which rent may legitimately be increased, and let us impose on the tenants the responsibility of recouping the landlords for the increase of rates, legally or illegally exacted in respect of rates, and let the tenant have the benefit of the law as regards other things. That may be satisfactory or it may be unsatisfactory, but it is far more in accordance with legal practice and sound politics, and with the justice and the equities of the case that a compromise such as this should be made in the frame of mind shown by my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, than in the frame of mind shown by the Government Bill. The Government Bill has no pretence to equity or justice; it simply says, "We do not care if the landlords have put their property in order, or not. We do not care about that; we do not care about rates, about costs, and charges. The only thing we are concerned about is this, that we are afraid to compel tenants who have not paid to pay. We have no intention of compelling landlords who have exacted payments, declared illegal by the House of Lords, to refund them to the tenants."
I am getting on to the edge of the Third Reading, and I will not pursue it. A point that might remain until Tuesday, when we shall return to this matter, is that made by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, regarding Clause 3. We want the increases of rent in respect of repairs, which in the vast majority of cases were never carried out at all, to be eliminated. The Attorney-General says that if, under Clause 3, a Court should declare, either on the motion of the tenant who believes himself to be aggrieved, or on the motion of the sanitary authority, that the house is not fit for habitation, and so on, then part of the increase in rent will be eliminated.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The whole increase in rent, not part.

Mr. MacDONALD: The whole increase in rent will be eliminated. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is no substance in such a proposal. He knows perfectly well that the cases are not merely where the house is
declared to be insanitary or unfit for habitation. It is not in respect to those houses that increases in rent have been imposed. It is not in respect of that type of property that landlords have been allowed, under the principal Act, to increase their rent. The increase of rent has been in respect of repairs which, whether made or not made, the house still is not in a fit state to be Inhabited; but not having been made, the charge for them amounts, not to a repayment of an outgoing on the part of the landlord, but to a pure form of rent, an increase in the cost of the house accommodation. That is what we want left out when we move this Amendment to secure that only payment for rates should be considered when the landlord is allowed to increase his rent. I therefore submit to the House that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is a sound Amendment; sound in principle; sound in equity. It is the best form of making a compromise which will make this Bill decent, and I hope the House will carry it by a majority.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: There is one matter upon which I can agree with the Leader of the Opposition, and that is that in many respects this Bill is a bad one. If, however, this Amendment be carried, it will make it a much worse Bill still. This is by no means a Scottish question, because I can speak, so far as this country is concerned, for a very large number of people who will be affected by this legislation. I am particularly concerned in the operation of this Amendment, not with the large landlords in this country who were properly advised, and who gave their notices to quit; but with those large numbers of people in West Ham and East Ham, in London generally, and all over the country, who own one house and collect their own rents themselves. There are a very large number of these people, and they are not accustomed to get legal advice. They simply got a form from a stationer in their district, filled it up in accordance with the Schedules of the Act, and thought they had given a proper and legal notice.
If this Amendment is carried, the position of these people will be simply this, that if they have carried out their repairs, if they have acted properly, as they have seen fit to do, they are not entitled to have the money they have expended. That is a most unfair position to put people in.
I did not follow the Leader of the Opposition at all in his interpretation of Clause 3. Clause 3, I think, gives most wide and extensive powers. If he will look at the phraseology of it, he will see that any tenant can apply on the ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation—I cannot conceive any wider phrase—or is otherwise not in a reasonably fit state.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: What is your definition of "reasonably fit"?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer is, that so far as previous legislation is concerned it has never gone so wide as that. So far as the interpretation of this Clause has been given in this country by our county court judges, no hon. Member opposite will dispute the fact that they have been most scrupulous in their interpretation on behalf of the tenant. If this Amendment is passed, what is going to happen to all those large numbers of people, in this country at any rate, who have had no legal advice, and have given the notices which they thought fit and right? They are to be debarred from recovering the reasonable sums they have expended.
My complaint against the Bill is not that of hon. Members opposite at all. They are to be highly congratulated on the terms of the Bill. I think it is very unfair, in many respects, to the landlords of this country, but I am not going to vote against the Bill for the same reason as that given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). [Laughter.] I do not think it gives rise to amusement. I can see the people of this country getting little out of this Bill, and my complaint against the Government is that they have not had the courage to put this matter on a reasonable basis. I do not share, for a moment, the criticism that has been levelled against the Bill by hon. Members opposite. If this Amendment were passed it would simply make matters worse.

Mr. STEPHEN: I want to deal with the statement of the Attorney-General that there is no logic in this Amendment. The proper answer to that is, that no one in this House who knows anything at all about logic will say that the Bill is a logical Measure. It is based altogether, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, on an illogical ground. I want to impress on the
Attorney-General that, inasmuch as there is no logic in the Measure, it is not good enough, as an excuse, for him to refuse this Amendment, to say it is an illogical Amendment. If it be illogical, then it is thoroughly in keeping with the general Measure. I suggest to him that, whether it is illogical or not—while I should agree with the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who might not have sat for Hillhead had he been as outright in his opinions when he was before the electorate of Hillhead—it is in thorough keeping with the rest of the Bill. The Amendment should be agreed to for this reason, that it will not do so much injustice to the tenants in the various cases would be done if it were not accepted. I want the Attorney-General to look at this Amendment, not from the point of view of the landlord, not from the point of view of those who, with the opportunities they have of knowing the law, by the opportunities given to them by the amount of wealth they possess and who are able to get the best leading opinion, but to look at it from the point of view of the ordinary member of the working classes. I want him to have regard to the circumstances of the man of the working classes who is face to face with this complicated Measure. That man acted in accordance with what he thought was the meaning of the Act. In many cases in Scotland he tried to get repayments made to him, and in the Sheriff Court it was said that it was just as good as paying his money into the bank, that afterwards it would be all right. If this Amendment be accepted, I hold you will not be doing as great a measure of injustice to that working man as you will be doing if the Bill passes without it.
5.0 P.M.
Do the Members of this House realise how hard are the circumstances of the working classes of the country? Yet you are going to refuse to them in this illegal Measure any measure of justice whatsoever. You are going to push it to the extreme against them. It has been suggested that the Bill is a compromise. I say to you that, if it is a compromise, if you accept this Amendment, you will be making that compromise more favourable to those working people, many of them unemployed and up against the most fearful circumstances. I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider his decision. I
suggest to the Solicitor-General for Scotland—who is fortunate in that for the present he represents a Scottish constituency—that he should have some regard to his own political life and that he should agree with us and give us the Amendment we are pressing for. I am quite certain his constituents in Aberdeen, were they here, would be with us in pressing for this Amendment. I want to appeal to the learned Gentlemen on the Front Bench to reconsider this matter and give some little measure of justice to the working man. Give to him something in the nature of a compromise and do not only have regard to the interests of wealth and property as has been the case with the Government when they brought forward such a horrible Measure as this.

Mr. POTTS: I want to put two questions to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General said that if property-owners did not keep their property in a proper state of repair they could not get any increase of rent. I want to ask him a question on that.

Mr. SPEAKER: On that point there is an Amendment to Clause 3 raising that specific question, and the hon. Member can then get his opportunity.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: There is one point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House and which has not been dealt with by the Attorney-General. I want to draw attention to the fact that the owners of houses were advised that, before they would be entitled to get any increase of rent, they would require to give notice to quit, and that by far the largest proportion of the house-owners in this country—I mean England, Scotland and Wales—did give that notice and as a consequence are receiving increased rent. There is another proportion of houseowners who did not give the notice. I am not speaking of the poor widow. She is not in it. If it had only been the individual case mentioned or referred to by the hon. Gentleman for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) this Bill would not have been under discussion to-day. The gentlemen who refused to carry out the law equally got the same advice, but they did not consider that they were bound in any way to pay any attention to what they conceived to be an injunction or an instruction contrary to what they thought was common sense.

Mr. SPEAKER: This point will be more relevant to the next Amendment.

Mr. POTTS: I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the point which I put. If we dispose of this Amendment, is my opportunity of putting my point gone altogether?

Mr. SPEAKER: No. On Clause 3 the Amendment of the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) covers that point.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 258.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[5.10 p.m.


Adams, D.
Harris, Percy A.
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hayday, Arthur
Phillipps, Vivian


Attlee, C. R.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Potts, John S.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Herriotts, J.
Richards, R.


Bonwick, A.
Hill, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hinds, John
Riley, Ben


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brotherton, J.
Hogge, James Myles
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Rose, Frank H.


Buchanan, G,
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Saklatvala, S.


Burgess, S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Salter, Dr. A.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Sexton, James


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Snowden, Philip


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Stephen, Campbell


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Darbishire, C. W.
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, J.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lawson, John James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Duncan, C.
Leach, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Thornton, M.


Ede, James Chuter
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lowth, T.
Turner, Ben


Fairbairn, R. R.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wallhead, Richard C.


Falconer, J.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Foot, Isaac
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Warne, G. H.


Gosling, Harry
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Webb, Sidney


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
March, S.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Greenall, T.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Weir, L. M.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Millar, J. D.
Wheatley, J.


Groves, T.
Morel, E. D.
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Mosley, Oswald
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Muir, John W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hall, G. H. (Mertbyr Tydvil)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wright, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Nichol, Robert



Hancock, John George
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Lunn.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Berry, Sir George
Butcher, Sir John George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Betterton, Henry B.
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Blundell, F. N.
Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Butt, Sir Alfred


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Button, H. S.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Brass, Captain W.
Cadogan, Major Edward


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cautley, Henry Strother


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Broad, F. A.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Barnston, Major Harry
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Becker, Harry
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Chapman, Sir S.


Bell, Lieut-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bruford, R.
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Bruton, Sir James
Clayton, G. C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cope, Major William
Hudson, Capt. A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hughes, Collingwood
Remnant, Sir James


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Hume, G. H.
Rentoul, G. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Jephcott, A. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Ellis, R. G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sandon, Lord


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shepperson, E. W.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lorden, John William
Simpson, J. Hope


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lorimer, H. D.
Singleton, J. E.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lougher, L.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sparkes, H. W.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Furness, G. J.
Manville, Edward
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Garland, C. S.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gates, Percy
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Molson, Major John Elsdate
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Tubbs, S. W.


Gretton, Colonel John
Murchison, C. K.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Grigg, Sir Edward
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wallace, Captain E.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Waring, Major Walter


Halstead, Major D.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington).


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wells, S. R.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Harney, E. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Whitla, Sir William


Harrison, F. C.
Paget, T. G.
Willey, Arthur


Harvey, Major S. E.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hawke, John Anthony
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Pease, William Edwin
Winterton, Earl


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wise, Frederick


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Penny, Frederick George
Wolmer, Viscount


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Perring, William George
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Peto, Basil E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pielou, D. P.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Young, Rt. Hon. E, H. (Norwich)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Privett, F. J.



Hood, Sir Joseph
Raeburn, Sir William H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hopkins, John W. W.
Raine, W.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel




Gibbs.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Lansbury:
In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words 'whether before or' ['whether before or after the passing of this Act'].

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Lansbury.

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Before the hon. Member for Bow and
Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) moves the Amendment standing in his name, I desire to call your attention to the fact that there two Amendments standing next on the Paper in my name, to leave out the word "whether" and also the words "or after," and I wish to submit that as the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is equivalent
to a rejection of the principle of the Bill, my Amendment, which raises a minor issue, but deals with the question as to whether there shall be an alteration of the law for the future, should be taken instead. May I remind you, Sir, that on the Committee stage the whole question of retrospective operation was fully argued, but, owing to the Rules of Order, the other question, which is also very important and which affects closely the structure of the Bill, could not be discussed or decided by the Committee. I submit it would be for the convenience of the House that at least one opportunity should be given for discussing the question as to whether, in this Bill, which purports to get over the effects of the Rouse of Lords decision, we should at the same time alter the law for the future.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was quite aware that the two next Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), taken together, bring forward a proposition which is the reverse of that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, but I can hardly agree with the hon. Member on the matter of importance. It would not be possible to take both propositions, bemuse the settlement of one will rule out the other. I am afraid I am in the same position as the Chairman of the Committee, and am unable under the Rules to give the hon. Member the opportunity he desires.

Mr. PRINGLE: I was merely making the submission to you, Sir, because to you is open a discretion on the point. The Chairman of the Committee, as I understand the Rules, is bound to take the Amendments in the order in which they are handed in and in which they appear on the Paper. That obligation does not, as I understand it, rest upon the Chair here, which has the right to select Amendments. My submission was that instead of taking the Amendment which, in effect, reverses the decision of this House on the Second Reading and which would render the whole Bill of no effect, an opportunity should, on the other hand, be given to discuss an Amendment, which is not fatal to the principle of the Bill, but which raises an important issue, namely, whether in dealing with the rights of persons affected by the House of Lords decision we should alter the general law relating to notices.

Mr. SPEAKER: As between the two hon. Members, I do not think there is much in the difference, because the second proposition would destroy the Bill as much as the first.

Mr. PRINGLE: Oh, no, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter, on which I must exercise my own opinion. I can only say that I carefully considered the two Amendments of the hon. Member in coming to a decision as to which Amendment on this point I should select.

Mr. PRINGLE: I wish, with all respect, to make this further point that my Amendment is not fatal to the Bill in any respect.

Mr. SULLIVAN: It is no use.

Mr. PRINGLE: I quite agree from the hon. Member's point of view it is no use. I submit that the effect of my Amendment would be that while the situation arising out of the House of Lords decision would be dealt with by the Bill, the law as settled by the House of Lords would remain, and I had hoped to convince the House that we would have had a clearer condition of the law on the point if my Amendment were adopted. I think in the course of the discussion in Committee that view was to some extent shared by the Law Officers of the Crown. I am quite agreeable if you, Sir, should take the advice of either the learned Attorney-General or the learned Solicitor-General on this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: Fortunately, I am not a lawyer, and I have to exercise whatever small gifts are left to me. I have used them such as they are in regard to this matter, and have come to the conclusion in favour of the Amendment which I have already called.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "whether before or" ["whether before or after the passing of this Act"].
The whole of the discussion of this Bill so far, and the very necessity for the Bill, I think proves that the judgment which you, Mr. Speaker, have exercised is right. The plea that the legal Gentlemen should determine which of these Amendments is the best falls to the ground, considering the mess which has been made and which has brought this Bill into existence. The effect of this
Amendment will be to make the Subsection read in this way:
Where notice of intention to increase rent has after the passing of this Act been served etc.
It really knocks out the retrospective part of the Bill. I should like to read to the House what the Attorney-General said in Committee on an Amendment of this kind:
What we say is that where people have paid in the belief that they were bound to pay the Act of Parliament shall state in effect, 'You are perfectly right in making payment and you shall not be put in the position of being able to force the landlord to repay the money which you paid in the belief that notice to quit was not necessary; which he accepted in the same belief and with which you were both satisfied, if there had not been certain agitators to tell you that you were being done out of your rights.'
I always understood that legal gentlemen were the people who agitated other people to demand their rights and I do not think we are the only people who agitate men and women to get their rights. The statement I have read exactly applies to the point which was submitted a little while ago, that this Bill does not establish proper relationships, say, as between two sets of tenants in one building. One tenant may have, as it were, got away with it during the past year or two and the other may have paid. The Bill says that those tenants who were for tunate enough to know the law shall have the benefit, but that those who did not know the law shall be deprived of the benefit. How one can regard that as an equitable arrangement I am at a loss to understand. We want to get back to a position which is both legal and equitable. I do not take the view that the Amendment would, of necessity, destroy the Bill. We could make the law clear so that a similar situation would not arise hereafter.
It is assumed by legal gentlemen who speak on this subject that the people understand the housing laws. I doubt if there is a single Member in the House who understands all the different housing laws, and the regulations under which they are administered. The fact is these laws are such a hotch-potch that it takes a lawyer to explain first one part and then another. Large numbers of people who
have never had their houses or apartments done up, do not understand the powers they possess of enforcing their rights on the landlords. The argument that the Bill only affects Scotland is quite fallacious. In the district from which I come a large number of people have refused to pay, and, I believe, are still refusing to pay, and if this Bill goes through as it stands, we shall be in very great trouble in trying to get money out of people who have not any money. The last condition of this difficult problem will be worse than the first. You are proposing to say to the people that on a certain date in December last they should have known what was in the mind of the Government. There again the assumption is that the people all read the Debates in this House, appearing in the newspapers, and know the words of wisdom which fall from the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General. There are masses of people in the country who know nothing about these things, and who do not take the faintest interest in the proceedings of this House. There is no law compelling them to do so, and before a law has been passed, no one has the right to say that people should be cognisant of the fact that such a law is going to be passed. It is an entirely new doctrine if we are to frame our lives and rule our outgoings and incomings, not by what the law is, but by what the law may be. If hon. Gentlemen opposite understood what is implied in this retrospective Clause, they would not so readily vote in large numbers in its favour, as they have done on previous occasions.
The right hon. Baronet the Member for Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Horne) talked about the poor widows. When it is sought to defend some vested interests the poor widow and orphans are always trotted out. The people concerned in East London are not poor widows and orphans, but people who bought up very bad property at ruinous prices and now charge enormous rents for quite old slums. Many of those people thought the tenants did not know anything about their legal rights, and they imposed the increase of rent. You are now going to say to the poor people who had the benefit of that, and who spent the money, that they must pay it back again. I think you will not get it back. I think this Bill will lead
to an enormous amount of litigation and trouble in districts like the East End of London. In regard to the equity and the morals of this question, somebody on the other side appealed to us on the score of morality to pass this Bill. If life was organised on a moral basis, I hope I would be willing to judge all questions purely from the point of view of morals, but there are no morals in the law. The law is the law, whether it is moral or immoral. I say to the Attorney-General what I have said to judges and magistrates, and that is that the law never takes into account humanity and human beings, and the magistrates and judges have always answered me, "I am very sorry, but this is the law, and I am here only to administer the law." I have had a judge tell me he agreed with everything I said, and then at the end say. "I am very sorry, but I am not a legislator; I have to administer the law as I find it," and then he sent me to prison.
I want to point out that it is no use appealing to us on the score of morality or of equity. You have got to take the law as it stands, and I hope the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will support us in this, not only by speech, but by coming into the Lobby, because he knows very well that the one thing you try to impose upon workmen—and we try, too—is the sanctity of agreements. In effect, a landlord, when he lets a house to a tenant, does so according to the law of the land, which gives the tenant certain rights and the landlord certain rights. We maintain that if Parliament carries a Bill of this kind, if in the future we want to break all the contracts that have been made between the State and individuals, none of you could stand up and deny our right to do so. To-day you are going to use the brute force of Parliament against, not rich people, but very poor people. There are no middle class persons, in the sense in which we understand the middle class, and certainly no upper class people, who are concerned in this business at all. In our district in East London they are very poor people, living under most wretched conditions. I do not want to go outside the Speaker's ruling, and I will not pursue that except to say that this House is being asked to take away from poor people something that the law gave them. This House is being asked, because
some fairly well-to-do people have lost some money, to do what, in my memory, I do not ever remember it doing before, and that is to make a great Act of Parliament retrospective, to compel very poor people who have had money and were legally entitled to money, to give it up. You are going to say to those people that they must give it up after a certain date, having left other people, who got their advantage before that date, to get away with it altogether.
This House will commit a profound blunder, not only as concerns the working class, but as concerns the whole social life of the country. You are destroying the sanctity of contracts and any faith in your law, and you will make us all understand that when we get into power we can pass whatever laws we like, without any regard to whether it is right or wrong, so long as it is of advantage to the class, as you say, that we represent. I hope the House, before it rejects this Amendment, will very carefully consider the effect of passing the Bill as it stands. Finally, I want to say that you are defending, by passing this Bill, some of the worst rack-renters in the east end of London. You are defending some people who for years have doomed men and women to live under the most foul conditions. I would not defend what you are doing, even if they were good landlords, but most of the landlords who control the working people, being in the mass what they are, I say you are going to help the least deserving section of the community.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is a very serious matter to the people whom we represent, in the West of Scotland in particular. This idea of going to take money from people who have not got the money to give will be nothing short of asking for a revolution. We have done our very best, in Committee, to reason with the Attorney-General, with the Solicitor-General, and with the representative of the Scottish Office in order to impress on them the seriousness of this Bill. We have been told that this Bill is the result of deep consideration and due deliberation by the Attorney-General, in order to take us out of a quagmire, so far as the law is concerned. I am no lawyer—thank God for that!—but any man with any commonsense
can see at a glance, in going over this Bill, that it is going to land us in a mess that will take some clearing up. We have that on the authority of no less a personage than the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), and also the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), two men who are recognised as authorities on that side of the House. Never mind us here, who are actuated, not by points of law at all, but by points of humanity, but those lawyers, that learned fraternity which lives on the flesh and blood of the working classes—
they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you. That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Even they have descended from their pedestals to come down here to-day, amongst ordinary mortals, and use their influence, which should be considerable, with the Government, but it has evidently been of no avail. So that how an ordinary mortal like myself will be able to penetrate the hide of men of this description is beyond the tongue of man to tell. I have just come fresh from the Clyde, and I want, in all sincerity, to warn the Attorney-General. I know quite well that warning is of no avail in a great many cases, and men of that type live long, but nevertheless I want to say that my people on the Clyde are right up against it. They are not able to pay the current rent, let alone paying retrospective rent, and you are running the risk, a very serious risk, of the law being defied. What is the use of you making laws with which the people for whom you are making them are not able to comply? You are flying in the face of fate in performing in that fashion, and you have to remember this, that my people in Scotland—[An HON. MEMBER: "King of Scotland!"] Do not irritate me with your Kings. If you leave me alone, I will leave your King alone, but if you tread on a thistle, it will jag you!
The law in Scotland is being violated by this Bill, which is founded on a decision known as the Kerr v. Bryde decision, from my constituency. It was fought right up to the highest court in my native land, and we won, that unless the landlord had given due notice to quit, he had no right to any increase in rent, and Scotland says that is correct—not the
Socialists, not the Labour men, but the lawyers of Scotland. It was tried at the green table of Edinburgh—that is something you ken nothing about—tried at the highest court in Scotland, and it was decided that, unless that notice was given, they had no right to any increase. Then they came over the border into this modern Babylon, that is destroying ordinary mortals, because it is a city of corruption. They brought it to London here, and they saw the Secretary for Scotland—as we called him at that time in Scotland, Rab Munro—and he told them that he could do nothing; he could not bring it before the Cabinet until they had explored every avenue of the law. The only avenue left to them was the House of Lords. They went before the House of Lords, and the House of Lords again decided in favour of the tenant. But the landlords had the Government on their side, and they appealed to their friends. The rich man appealed to the rich man. It was the first time in history, as far as we are able to read, that the law operated in favour of the poor. Then they come to this Government, which will pass down to posterity with a curse on its head. Those who are part and parcel of this Government—they can take it from me—will be cursed by posterity. I am not making that statement on my own authority. I am making that statement on the authority of the Book which we Scotsmen revere—the Bible, another Book that I would recommend to Members opposite to read and study. And what do I find there there?
Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark.
These poor people, through the Labour movement, were able to fight a case right up to the highest court in the land and win, and then there are men with the brass face to sit on that bench and pose as being nice, kind Christian gentlemen, and yet plot and plan. I know the Attorney-General has lost some sleep on this Bill, and he can take it from me that it is only the beginning of the sleep that he will lose. The Premier has gone. There are others going the same way. We have been sent here to defend our people, and we are going to defend them. We on these benches are the men who to day are standing by the constitution of our country. I say to the Attorney-General, "Thou art the man." He is defying all
Government. He is trying to legislate against the constitution of my country. [Interruption.] I know perfectly well that Members opposite are doing their utmost to draw me off the trail. That was all right at the beginning, but I have tried my 'prentice hand on them, and I now stand fully fledged.
My purpose here to-day—I make no bones about it; there is no polish or veneer about me—is to see that everything possible is done to make Members opposite see the error of their ways, and get them to legislate in accordance with the ideas of the people, against whom this Bill is particularly directed. I warn the Attorney-General that he is making a law that the people of Scotland cannot keep. I want to drive that point home, because it is so important to Scotland. We have always been law-abiding. Time and again we have been misunderstood, and we have paid the penalty. I have never flinched when I have had to pay the penalty. It is a different matter when you instil in a whole nation the idea that you are going to turn down what they consider to be right. The decision of the highest authority in the land has got to be turned to one side by an Act of Parliament, not because the Government think it right, but because they have the majority. If they are able with their reasoning power, which they have, I admit; if they are able, through persuasion, to prove to us that they are right and we are wrong, then all will be well. But they have not been able to do that. I point again to the hon. Member for West Woolwich and the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), two outstanding personalities in the House, to try to do what they can to appeal to the Government not to go on with the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: This is not the Third Reading of the Bill, but an Amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is an Amendment equivalent to the Third Reading.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Believe me, I am very earnest in this matter. I know the circumstances of the people for whom I am appealing. I know the difficulty, and I got the Attorney-General in direct touch with the sheriffs of Glasgow to obtain for himself all the details that were necessary in order that he might know the thorny path he had set about to tread. We come here and appeal to
the Government to accept this Amendment, because if they do not, then it means that our people will defy the law, and I shall be one of those who will advise them to defy the law. I have done it all along. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Wait till I have finished my sentence. It is hon. Members opposite who are defying the law. The fact of the matter is—I have no desire to say but it is pulled out of me, and the truth will out—that those men would violate Christianity, they would violate the laws of our country, they would destroy our people.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): It is quite true that this Amendment does raise the whole point of the Bill, but the hon. Member must remember that the Bill is set down for Third Reading on Tuesday, and we cannot have the discussion now on the Third Reading as well as on Tuesday. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member will stick closely to the Amendment.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: There is only one point I wish to make, and then I am finished. It appears to me that because the present Government has a big majority over us at the moment, they are going to use that majority to ride roughshod over us, and we are determined, no matter what it costs us, that this is not going to take place. Our people are not able to pay any retrospective rent. How the Attorney-General can expect them to pay restrospective rent I do not know. Had he come to the Clyde he would have seen men and women, industrious fathers and mothers, who have been two years unemployed—no better tradesmen in the world, not a better asset in the British Empire than those people—being chased away from the banks of the Clyde and starved out of their native land. Then the Attorney-General, in the midst of that disaster, in the midst of that weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth—because that is what it comes to—takes the attitude he does. If we have got to focus that discontent and that misery against the powers that be, then if you are not going to allow us constitutionally to do this, we are going to focus it, because we are not going to allow our people to be starved slowly into submission.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have always been opposed to retrospective legislation, and
I am sorry to say that I cannot support it because it happens to be moved by a Government of which I am a supporter. The real facts of the case are very simple. As I understand it, a certain Measure was passed which contained a Section which was difficult of interpretation. That Section went through various Courts of Law and finally went to the House of Lords. The House of Lords thereupon gave a decision, which decision resulted in the fact that certain people who knew nothing of the technicalities of the Act, and had not complied with these technicalities, were unable to raise their rents. The reason of it all, of course, was that owing to the horribly hasty legislation passed during the last five or six years this House really did not quite know what it was doing. It is quite clear that Members of the House and members of the Government who were responsible did not intend that the Bill should be interpreted in the way in which it was interpreted by the House of Lords. But the fact remains that it was so interpreted, and that it was so interpreted by the highest Court of the Realm. That being so, I must say, being a law-abiding citizen, I am bound to obey—I am sorry to obey—but I am bound to obey the decision given by that Court.
It is certainly quite clear that there was a misunderstanding. It would be quite in order for the Government in a Bill to correct that misunderstanding. But that Bill ought to have the force of law from the time that it passed into law, or, at any rate, from the time it was introduced into the House. In my humble opinion it should be one of those two days. This is dangerous legislation for the Conservative party to bring in, to say that because the House of Lords has given a decision founded on a mistake—I do not mean that the House of Lords was wrong—but because there has been this decision that retrospective legislation should ensue. I have been 31 years in this House. During the whole of that time I have been strongly opposed to retrospective legislation, and I certainly am not going to change my opinions at the last moment. But I must say that I am rather astonished at the attitude taken up by the Labour party, because these are the people I have endeavoured without success to convince that
retrospective legislation is wrong—that is, those Labour Members who were in the House at the time, and I met with extreme ridicule. They have always been in favour of retrospective legislation, and I am, therefore, very much surprised that they should suddenly turn and take up the attitude they do.

Mr. PRINGLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any examples in mind?

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes. I was going to give one or two when the hon. Gentleman interrupted me. Those Members of the Labour party who were in the House then know what was done with respect to the Taff Vale decision. That decision was not based in any way upon an error, but upon the common law of the land. The Taff Vale decision happened to be one against the desires of the then existing trade unions. We were told that judge-made law was a wrong thing, and that judge-made law ought to be reversed, and unfortunately it was reversed—and I hope it will be reversed again.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I interrupt the right hon. Baronet? Does he remember that the Unionist Government, of which he was a supporter, gave one of the best examples of really retrospective legislatin in dealing with the Churches of Scotland Act? That Act reversed the decision of the House of Lords in regard to the property of the Free Church and was retrospective in that it took the property of the Free Church?

Sir F. BANBURY: I have never taken up the attitude that a Conservative Government is always right. I have always exercised an independent judgment. Also, they very often make mistakes in Scotland. But because the Conservative Government made one mistake in the Kirk of Scotland that is not an argument that they should go on and make another in what is a serious question. I do not understand the attitude of the Labour party. Still I am always ready to welcome converts. I am glad the Labour party are standing up in defiance of any retrospective legislation, and in defence of the judgment of the House of Lords, and under the circumstances I beg most humbly to congratulate them on their conversion and to assure them if they take this matter to a Division in reasonable time I shall vote with them.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: We had hoped that in the proposals under consideration the Government would be prepared to consider them more reasonably than apparently they are prepared to do. We are not suggesting at all that any legal rent should not be paid. This Amendment of ours means—if it means anything at all—that it is accepted that the law, so far as the payment of increased rent goes, shall operate in future. What we are asking the Government to agree to is that it shall not be retrospective: that it should not go back to a date mentioned from the Government Benches. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has dealt with this question very largely from a constitutional standpoint. He congratulates the Labour party on their conversion to his view. I am afraid we are not yet converted. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have on various occasions attempted to get the Government to agree to the principle of retrospective legislation where we thought we had convinced them that a case had been made out for such legislation. We have invariably failed.
The Compensation Act, for instance, is a case in point. When the Compensation Act was first passed—I think it was in 1897—it was clearly stated that there were thousands of people who would have been entitled to benefit had their accident taken place somewhat later, but the Conservative Government of that day—I believe the right hon. Baronet would be a Member of the House at that time—decided they would not accept the principle of retrospective legislation. They decided that those men and women entitled to come under the Compensation Act would be entitled only to come under it from the date of the passing of the Act. There is no single instance, so far as I know—and I shall be pleased if anybody will tell me—in our industrial history where retrospective legislation has been passed for the advantage of the ordinary members of the working classes. There are any number of cases where remedial legislation has been passed; and this remedial legislation, when it was passed, was generally long overdue. But it never dated from a date prior to the passing of the Act itself.
We approach this matter, however, from more standpoints than that of the merely constitutional. Even though you could make out that there was a good constitutional precedent for restrospective legislation, still we on this side say that it would be inadvisable in the highest degree on the part of the Government under present conditions to attempt to pass that sort of lgislation. I do not know that it should be necessary for me to remind hon. Members opposite of what are the actual conditions. I am not here to say that the conditions are worse in Scotland than in England. We are not dealing with a purely Scottish question, but something which is affecting the interests of the British working man as tenant and also the owners of houses. We have no desire to do the latter any injustice. We would be perfectly willing to meet the Government so far as possible in giving relief to the men and women who have been unfortunate in so far as this difficulty is concerned. There is a way out if the Government care to take it. We are not objecting to the Government subsidising housing if they do it at the expense of the nation, but we object to them doing it at the expense of the poor tenant. I am certainly prepared, speaking of my own knowledge of what are the actual conditions in certain parts of the country, and what is likely to happen if this Bill passes in its present form, to suggest that the Government should endeavour to get out of their difficulties by another course than that proposed in the Bill. Quite frankly, we are animated not by any hatred or dislike of the houseowner. We quite agree that there is room for difference of opinion. We accepted that position up to the time the House of Lords gave their decision. Once they gave it we think we were entitled to ask that the policy always pursued in this country should be pursued in this particular case, and if there was a case to be made for the continuance of the increase of that 40 per cent. on rent, and the Government introduced legislation to make it perfectly legal, we should not have objected so strongly as we are doing to this form of legislation. People are perfectly entitled to object to any increase in rent. As a matter of fact, the increase of 40 per cent. was given in direct contradiction of a pledge made by the present Prime Minister in 1918, and in 1920 this legislation was passed. It gave the landlords the
right to increase rents by 40 per cent., and it is no use the Attorney-General or anybody else in this House suggesting that there are differences in the amount of the increase that has to be paid. The landlords have always interpreted the 1920 Act to mean that they were entitled to an increase of 40 per cent. on the standard rent whether the house was habitable or uninhabitable.
I am merely reminding hon. Members that there has been from 1920 up to the present time considerable disquiet in the minds of many thousands of tenants not associated with the Labour party, because of the deliberate breach of the promise that was made by the present Prime Minister and by the late Prime Minister. We are now moving to leave out the words, "whether before or" and then the Clause will read:
Where notice of intention to increase rent has, after the passing of this Act
We are making a considerable concession. We are willing to accept the 40 per cent. increase, notwithstanding the fact that we protested against it, providing that you do not seek to introduce something which is bound to create a considerable amount of trouble in the industrial centres of this country. There is no need for us to threaten you or try to frighten you into the acceptance of our Amendment. It our case is not based upon reasonable grounds we ought not to win, but I submit to the Attorney-General that, apart from the constitutional aspect of the quesion, there are some social and economic reasons why some other method should be adopted to get over this difficulty than that which is presented in this Bill. I appeal to the Attorney-General even now to postpone the final consideration of this question until the Report stage, and if he does so and makes enquiries as to the actual situation he will find that it is much more to the advantage of the Government to meet us by some concession that will be more acceptable to the tenant and the houseowner than by pressing through this proposal.
This is the kernel of the Bill, and if this Clause is forced through it will create a difficult situation, not on the Clyde, the Tyne or the Weir alone, but on the Thames as well. In every industrial part of the country you will find the people determined not to pay this increased rent
which is being made retrospective. I do not enter into the fancy points which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) or the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) which are lawyer's points. We are trying to approach this question in a practical way. You are asking for money from tenants who cannot give it, and the only recourse left to the owner is to bring them before the Sheriff's Court or the County Court, and under this Bill, when they have got before those Courts, the judge will have no choice but to issue a notice of eviction which will spell ruin to hundreds and thousands of women and men who are quite as good as we are, and quite as honest. I appeal to the Attorney-General to give some humane consideration to this matter, and if he does I am sure he will meet the wishes of his own friends, as well as hon. Members on these benches by coming to some sort of arrangement which will obviate the necessity of trouble of the kind to which I have alluded.

Mr. PRINGLE: We have had an interesting discussion on this question, which really goes to the root of the Bill. We have had the legal aspect discussed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), whom we are glad to see taking part in our Debates again. We have had the humane and practical aspect put before the House by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood). I join issue with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City, who wrings his hands over the distressing precedent which the Government he follows and loves so well is now creating. I was amused to find the right hon. Gentleman's recollection had gone so sadly astray. His great case of retrospective legislation was the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, but, as a matter of fact, that was not a retrospective Act at all.

Sir F. BANBURY: I never said that it was. I simply brought it forward to show the extraordinary change which has taken place in the Labour party. They then sought to alter the decision of the House of Lords, and in this case they do not want to alter the decision of the House of Lords.

Mr. PRINGLE: In this matter, I am within the recollection of the House. I
would remind hon. Members that just before the right hon. Gentleman cited this particular Act he was saying that in the past the Radical party and the Labour party had both been guilty of putting forward retrospective legislation. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman and asked him to give us some examples, and the example which he gave of this vice of retrospective legislation was the Trade Disputes Act. In this case we must assume that the example which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, and the vice to which he says Radicals and Labour Members have been addicted in the past, is totally irrelevant.
I object to retrospective legislation, but I do not regard the Trade Disputes Act as in any respect retrospective legislation, because it accepted the decision of the House of Lords as the finding of the Law as it then was. But surely Parliament is entitled to alter the law and make new laws in fact, that is what Parliament is for. If it were not necessary to have new legislation then the work of Parliament would be unnecessary. We have had retrospective legislation before from a Unionist Government. There was the case of the Church in Scotland. The case of the property of the Church of Scotland came before the House of Lords, and a decision was given in favour of the smaller body—the Free Church, which was known as the "Wee Frees," a name which has descended upon another organisation which is equally responsible, and it is a case of equal devotion to principle and an equal willingness to make sacrifices for it. I am dealing with the question of retrospective legislation. What happened was this. Parliament intervened and took away property from the Free Church which the House of Lords decision had adjudicated to that church. The right hon Gentleman was a Member of Parliament then, and he took no exception to that.

Sir F. BANBURY: I knew nothing about it, because I do not bother about Free Church matters, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) told me that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) was quite wrong in his statement.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman is not here.
At any rate, it is not so bad in the present Bill. I come to a more recent date at which the right hon. Gentleman assented to retrospective legislation, and it is the case affecting Lord Birkenhead. First of all, he was Solicitor-General in the Coalition Government. He then accepted the office of Attorney-General on the resignation of Lord Carson. He did not submit himself for re-election, and he sat and voted here for several months, incurring thereby heavy penalty. What happened? A retrospective Act was passed relieving the Attorney-General from penalties of thousands of pounds which he had incurred by a breach of law.
I was the only Member who objected to that legislation. I have a clean record on retrospective legislation, and it is absolutely stainless, and I only regret that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) cannot share that record with me. I sympathise from the legal and constitutional point of view with the attitude which has been taken up by the Labour party in this matter. I believe that this is a thoroughly bad precedent. I believe that right hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite will live to regret this proposal, and that they will find this case cited against them in the future when questions affecting property come to be decided in another Parliament by men holding other views, and who have other objects in their mind. They will say that when the Court of this land decided once in favour of that power you interfered with what had been adjudicated upon by the highest Court in the land; they will follow your example and will bear that precedent in mind when they are legislating also for the disinheritance of people. [Interruption.] It may be a long time, but if you go on in this way it will come sooner. The hon. Gentleman, who is a Scotsman, and sits for one of the least enlightened areas of Scotland, because he lives in the seclusion of Streatham, and is thereby altogether screened from the currents which are affecting the greater democratic areas of this country, cannot afford to treat these things with contempt.
It is a very real situation which now exists on the Clyde. There is unemployment on the Clyde—

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is this on the Amendment?

Mr. PRINGLE: I am on the practical effects of this legislation. I have dealt with the legal aspects, and have shown that there is no precedent for anything like what is done in this Bill. I was advocating a particular method of dealing with rent restriction yesterday, and I pointed out that, by inserting a Clause in the Bill which has to be introduced, the necessity for yesterday's Bill could be obviated. But the taunt thrown at me by the Minister of Health was that I was doing an extraordinary thing in suggesting retrospective legislation. All I suggested was that that Bill, when introduced, should only operate as from the date of its introduction. It is a thing that has often been done by Parliament before, because it has been held that, when a Bill is introduced, notice is given to the parties of the effect of it. That was the case with the principal Act. It was assumed that by the introduction of the Bill notice was given, and, indeed, the principal Act was not passed until a week after the term in England, and six weeks after the term in Scotland, whereby the rents of the parties were affected. This, however, is quite a different matter; you go back to a much earlier period. You go back to a declaration of the Prime Minister. A speech of the Prime Minister is your standard. That is a thing that has never been done before by any party in this House. It is quite without precedent, and it is a most surprising thing that the party which boasts that it is the constitutional party, the party of law and order, the party which used to support the principles of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London—the principles of which he is now the last exponent in this House—

Sir F. BANBURY: I am going to vote with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am delighted, of course, that on this occasion the right hon. Baronet is going to be true to his principles. I know that he has often done it apart from his party before, but I am singling him out for unique distinction as the last of the Conservatives. I think it, is relevant, on this question of the retrospective operation of this Act, to consider also its practical effects in relation to the conditions of Glasgow and the Clyde. There you have unemployment more severe at the present moment than in
almost any other part of the country. In some parts of the country unemployment has diminished, but it cannot be said that there is any improvement in that area. What does that mean? It means that large masses of the people there are not able to pay the current rent, and you are passing, in this Measure, a provision which is going to compel them, not only to pay the current rent which they are incapable of paying, but also to pay arrears, in respect of which their ability to pay must obviously be much less. I say it is absurd to expect that it can be practically operative. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs talked about revolutionary conditions. It is a thing that cannot be enforced, and it is well to remember that this area is in a particular position in regard to this question of rent. It was there that the problem first arose. It was there that the first unconscionable increases of rent, in the early days of the War, were made, and it was the people who made the increases then who made the first Rent Restrictions Act inevitable. I am dealing with what occurred in 1915, and I say that the people who made that necessary are the people also who did not give the notices, and who have brought about this position and caused all this trouble. I think I ought to call attention to that. I say that, under these conditions, and bearing that history in mind, if you endeavour to force this, you are going to fail, and, whatever value you put upon your Statute, your Statute in the long run, for this purpose, in relation to people who are too poor to pay, is not worth more than waste paper.
I was wanting to make a few observations on another aspect of the Bill. I have, as the House will remember, an Amendment on the Paper which relates to certain words included in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. I put that Amendment on the Paper with a view to calling attention to what I regard as another of the vices of the Bill. This Bill is not only retrospective; it alters the law for the future. By altering the law for the future, it is introducing confusion which is bound to create difficulty for the future, and, as that, arises on one of the words included in this Amendment, I hope I shall be able to point to the confusion that will thereby result. The House will observe that this Bill says that the notice given will have a certain effect, whether it be
given before or after the passing of the Act, and then the remainder of the Clause goes on to deal with both sets of circumstances concurrently, or pari passu. The result of this is that you have, as it were, two series of phrases running through the Clause together, making distinctions between the one and the other, and thereby making the whole thing a most confusing conglomeration, practically impossible for the ordinary man to interpret. There are several hon. and learned Gentlemen here this afternoon. There is the ex-Attorney-General, whom we are glad to see, and who, I believe, can be relieved of all responsibility for the principal Act, because I understand that the Law Officers were thought to be incompetent to advise upon that Measure. It was a monument to the legislative capacity of the then Minister of Health, for which the lawyers have no responsibility whatever. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, is quite disinterested, but I would put it to him, or to the hon. and learned Member for the St. Ives Division of Cornwall (Mr. Hawke), or to the hon. and learned Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt), that it would be difficult to find in any Statute a more complicated and difficult Sub-section than Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill. It is all because, in this single Sub-section, you are endeavouring to do two things—you are endeavouring to deal with the law as declared by the House of Lords, and the notices which had been given before that decision, and you are also endeavouring to deal with the notices given subsequently to that decision.
When the House decided to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I believe it decided that there should be retrospective legislation. That was the principle accepted by the House, that the practical effects arising out of that decision were to be dealt with in one way or another. But my submission to the House is that that was all that you had to do. You did not need to alter the law after that. After the House of Lords gave its decision in Kerr v. Bryde, everyone knew what the law was. The great majority of people believed before that the law was as the House of Lords defined it, but after the decision was given the position was perfectly plain. No one was in any doubt;
everyone knew the kind of notice required to be given for the purposes of making an increase of rent under the principal Act. That is agreed. Why, then, alter that law for the future? Why say that you are going to have a different kind of notice in regard to all future cases that arise under the Act? It is absolutely unnecessary. And what is the effect? First of all, you do not repeal the provision in the principal Act which was interpreted in Kerr v. Bryde, so that that stands, and, in addition, you have another procedure under this Sub-section. Therefore, for the future, in any case arising under the Rent Restriction Act, the landlord may decide to give the notice in the one form or the other, and the tenant will not know under which Section the landlord is giving it. You are, therefore, most likely to cause confusion among the people affected by the Act, and, by causing confusion, you are likely to bring about one of those incidents which have been so plentiful under the original Act, where legislation will arise, where the minds of Judges will be puzzled, and where, probably, a decision will be given altogether contrary to what this House or the Government expect. It is for that reason that I think, even yet, the Attorney-General should consider this matter in the later stages of the Bill, and eliminate all those provisions which alter the law for the future. Let him be content with dealing with the effect of the decision in Kerr v. Bryde, and leave the definition of the law as it was in that decision for the future. I suggest that that will be in the interests of all concerned.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We have listened, in the course of the Debate on this Amendment, to speeches which were some of them persuasive and some of them fiery, and I have heard myself compared to a number of people whom I did not know I resembled. I think the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) began by comparing me with Solomon, and went on to compare me to a gentleman who was cursed in the Bible for removing his neighbour's landmark. I do not think that either comparison was a very apt one. The hon. Member said that, if only we could persuade him that we were right, he would not vote against us, but, in fact, would support us. I am not very sanguine of succeeding, because
I have tried before and failed, but I will have another try, and, perhaps, this time hip ears will be opened to hear.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. The Attorney-General is just going over exactly the same phraseology that I used to him.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not know that the Scripture was copyright, and the hon. Member will agree with me that I must obviously, at any rate, have listened to his speech, if I am able to reproduce it. I am going a little further in following his example, if I may be allowed to do so. He made an appeal to me to try and mitigate the trouble which he foresaw, by departing from what he regarded as the error of my ways. I am going to make an appeal to him. He has told us that in Scotland his people are law-abiding people, and he has told us they are anxious to obey and keep the law. May I appeal to him if the majority of this House, who, after all, represent their constituents just as much as he represents his, come to the conclusion that the law wants altering, as we think it does, whether he will not try to persuade his people to continue to be law-abiding citizens, and encourage them to keep the law. I think that might perhaps be a better service to his people as well as to his country.
Several hon. Members have said there is no instance where the Courts have decided in favour of a rich man against a poor man where Parliament has interfered retrospectively. I should weary the House if I were to go through all the instances I could find, but I will give the one that is easiest to refer to, because it is embodied in the very Act with which we are now dealing. In Section 14 of the Principal Act there is a provision which re-enacts a similar provision in the Act of 1917 which was passed because it was pointed out to Parliament that decisions of the Courts acted harshly on poor men because the Courts had decided that where a tenant had paid money which he was not legally liable to pay under the various Rent Restrictions Acts he could not recover the money so paid. Thereupon Parliament interfered and enacted that where before or after the passing of the Act a tenant had paid such moneys he should be able to recover
them. In other words, Parliament altered retrospectively the rights of tenants against landlords. I think Parliament was probably quite right in doing that. I am not concerned to challenge their wisdom. I am mentioning it because I am challenged to produce an instance of retrospective legislation and that is a very obvious one which is quite ready to our hands. [Interruption.] I do not appreciate any difference.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is not the difference this, that in one case money was taken and held illegally and it had to be refunded, and in this case the money is already handed over illegally according to the last Act, but this Act seeks to make the holding of that money perfectly legal.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think the hon. Member has quite taken the point I was trying to deal with. The suggestion is that Parliament does not interfere retrospectively in favour of the tenant. I have given an instance, and I think it is a fair one, where Parliament has interfered retrospectively in favour of the tenant, and has given him the right to get money which at the moment that Act was passed he had no right to recover because the Courts had decided that the landlord was legally entitled to it. It is a perfectly fair instance. I could find others, but I do not want to take up the time of the House at great length in what we shall have to debate again to a great extent on Tuesday next.
The right hon. baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) objected to retrospective legislation, and no one suggests that retrospective legislation is in itself a desirable thing. He said the problem we had to meet was that a decision of the House of Lords had been given on what was an obscure and difficult point, and that as the result of that decision certain people were unable to raise their rent, and he said we could quite rightly bring in a Bill to correct the misunderstanding for the future, but that we had no business retrospectively to alter the law. If the problem were what my right hon. Friend suggests it was, I think his argument would be unanswerable and I should accede to his suggestion. But in fact that is not the problem with which we have to deal. The problem
is not whether certain people are unable to raise their rent. That would be a trifling matter. The real problem is a very different one. It affects not a few people in Glasgow only, but a very large number of people all over the United Kingdom. After the 1920 Act was passed, in which the notice of increase of rent was set out in the Schedule, the tenants proceeded to pay the increases demanded and they have continued to pay those increases in some cases down to the present day, and in most cases for something like two years. Then came the decision of the House of Lords, by a majority, that the notice of increase for which the Act of Parliament stipulated was not legal unless it was accompanied by a notice to quit, and thereupon we are faced with the position that all the tenants who have been paying under notices of increase for periods of sometimes two or two and three years, and who, of course, would have paid just the same if they had had notice to quit at the same time, are now claiming to recover from their landlord the whole of the increases which they have paid for those two or three years. If you pass an Act which says for the future notices of increase need not be accompanied with a notice to quit, you do not deal with the problem at all. You do not help the position with which you have to grapple, and it is no good ignoring a problem like that and thinking that by doing that you are solving it. You have in some way to grapple with the situation which has been created by a decision whose correctness I, of course, do not challenge, but which was certainly not appreciated by a great number of people, both lawyers and laymen, until it was pronounced by the House of Lords. I am right in saying that, because two out of the five Law Lords, including the Scotsmen, were in the dissenting minority.

Mr. STEPHEN: None of the Scottish bench.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Lord Dunedin, who for many years sat as a Scottish judge, was President in Scotland and is now one of our most valued judicial Members of the House of Lords, was one of the dissenting judges. I should have thought Lord Dunedin was as good a Scotsman as the hon. Member could desire. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member was speaking about the
Scottish Courts, the first decision that was given on the effect of this Act, so far as I know, was given in Scotland by the sheriff substitute in a case actually brought against a present Member of the House and the decision, which was never appealed, was that no notice to quit was necessary. Anything more calculated to mislead the landlords into the belief that their position was correct it is difficult to imagine.

Mr. SULLIVAN: May I put the same question I put to the right hon. Gentleman the last time he made that statement. May I ask him, as a lawyer, is there any appeal under the Act he is discussing if the other side does not agree?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In English law, certainly. As to Scottish law, I cannot pretend to speak with authority, but the question has been put to me before, and I have consulted other Scottish lawyers, and I am assured that there could have been an appeal in that case. But the point is not whether there could be an appeal or not. The point I am trying to make is that the only judicial decision upon this question which was known to Scottish people down to this case was a decision that no notice to quit was necessary, and therefore it is not quite fair to say there was no decision by Scottish judges to the same effect as the dissenting minority in the House of Lords. That is the problem with which this House has to deal. You do not deal with it at all if you merely say that for the future notice to quit is not necessary. Everyone admits it is an idle formality to give notice to quit. No one has ever suggested it has any practical value for landlords or tenants. Obviously, it might have a grave disadvantage to tenants by unsettling their minds to be told they were to clear out in a week when there was no intention of making them move. No one suggests that there is any value in a notice to quit, and therefore the position is that all those tenants who have paid under the belief that there was no need for a notice to quit, the landlords not having troubled them with an absolutely useless notice to quit, but having carefully given them the notice of increase which the Act described, could sue their landlords in all probability for the whole of the increases of rent they have been paying for years past.
That is an impossible and an intolerable position. The only two solutions which have been suggested other than our own are the suggestion that the State should pay all the landlords the whole amount of the increase, which is not one which would commend itself to an economical Government, and the suggestion which has come from some hon. Members that, to be logical, the retrospective character of the Bill ought to go right back to 1920, and that we have no business to limit it to 1st December, 1922. That again, though it might be logical, is not in our view either fair or practicable, and we are not proposing to do it. Hon. Members opposite have spoken as if we were making tenants pay retrospectively from July, 1920. Of course we are not. We are only making tenants pay who have not paid up from 1st December, 1922, and when hon. Members point out, as they no doubt quite rightly do, that there is unemployment and distress not only on the Clyde but in other parts of the country, and when they say these poor people cannot pay these rents, you must remember that the rents we are asking them to pay are being asked from people who have for the last five months refused to pay any rent at all, and it would be very unfair that the man on the one side who has paid his rent all along should be put in one position and the man who has for the last four months refused to pay any rent at all should now be in a position to say, "I cannot pay these increases, I have spent the money on something else."
One other word about payment. We recognise that, although these moneys have not been paid since 1st December, it would not be reasonable or possible to ask people to pay up four or five months' arrears of rent at one fell swoop. They could not do it, and accordingly—if the House compares the Bill now with the Bill as it passed Second Reading it will see that we have made substantial concessions—we have provided that instalments only shall be paid, which I am afraid will mean that the rent, even if the instalments are kept up regularly, will not be paid in some instances for three or four years. We have made the instalments as low as we can, and I can reassure the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Duncan Graham), who said where tenants could not pay and were brought
before the sheriff or the County Court judge there would be no option for the judge except to turn them out, by reminding him that there is an express provision in Section 5 (2) of the principal Act which gives a discretion to the County Court judge or the sheriff, as the case may be, either to suspend or to cancel the eviction order when he thinks it right and just.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: Is the Attorney-General receiving any information from Scotland at the present time of the numbers of eviction orders that are being brought before the Courts, and as a result of which in very many cases the people are turned out?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have no doubt whatever that eviction orders are being made. That was not the point I was making. As I understood him, what the hon. Gentleman suggested was that if a tenant could not pay these instalments and was brought before the sheriff or the County Court judge the sheriff or County Court judge has no option but to turn him out. I want to reassure the hon. Member about that. That is not the law, and if he will read Section 5, Sub-section (2), of the principal Act, which is incorporated in the present Bill, he will see—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!"]—this is the full provision:
At the time of the application for or the making or giving of any order or judgment for the recovery or possession of any such dwelling-house,"—
That is, any dwelling-house to which this Bill applies—
or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, or in the case of any such order or judgment which has been made or given, whether before or after the passing of this Act, and not executed, at any subsequent time, the Court may adjourn the application, or stay or suspend execution on any such order or judgment, or postpone the date of possession, for such period or periods as it thinks fit, and subject to such conditions (if any) in regard to payment by the tenant of arrears of rent, rent, or mesne profits and otherwise as the Court thinks fit, and, if such conditions are complied with, the Court may, if it thinks fit, discharge or rescind any such order or judgment.
I venture to think that the House and the hon. Gentleman may be reassured against those fears which he entertained
that the Court have no option on an application of this kind except to make an eviction order and turn the tenant out. I have taken up rather more time than I meant to do because I have dealt with matters which we shall have to discuss later. I think I am not taking an undue advantage of the House or the Opposition if I suggest that any further discussion on this particular Amendment can take place adequately on the Third Reading, where, quite obviously, it will be the main topic which we shall discuss, and rightly

discuss. I suggest that it may be in the interests of time and would not involve any sacrifice of their proper interests or any sacrifice of their proper principles if hon. Members were good enough to allow the House to come to a decision on this Amendment forthwith.

Question put, "That the words 'whether before or' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 160.

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[7.5 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hood, Sir Joseph


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Apsley, Lord
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Astbury, Lieut.-Coin. Frederick W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hudson, Capt. A.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hughes, Collingwood


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hume, G. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Ednam, Viscount
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Becker, Harry
Ellis, R. G.
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Jephcott, A. R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jodreil, Sir Neville Paul


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Falcon, Captain Michael
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Berry, Sir George
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lamb, J. Q.


Betterton, Henry B.
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Blundell, F. N.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lorden, John William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lort-Williams, J.


Brass, Captain W.
Furness, G. J.
Lougher, L.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ganzoni, Sir John
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Garland, C. S.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Goff, Sir R. Park
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Gould, James C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bruford, R.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bruton, Sir James
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Manville, Edward


Buckingham, Sir H.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Margesson, H. D. R.


Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gretton, Colonel John
Mercer, Colonel H.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Butcher, Sir John George
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Halstead, Major D.
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Harney, E. A.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harrison, F. C.
Murchison, C. K.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hawke, John Anthony
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Clarry, Reginald George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Clayton, G. C.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cope, Major William
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Paget, T. G.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Pease, William Edwin
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Russell, William (Bolton)
Tubbs, S. W.


Penny, Frederick George
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wallace, Captain E.


Perring, William George
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Peto, Basil E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Waring, Major Walter


Pielou, D. P.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Shepperson, E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Privett, F. J.
Simpson, J. Hope
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.
Whitla, Sir William


Raine, W.
Singleton, J. E.
Willey, Arthur


Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Earl


Remnant, Sir James
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Wise, Frederick


Rentoul, G. S.
Sparkes, H. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Reynolds, W. G. W.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.



Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rothschild, Lionel de
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Gibbs.


NOES.


Adams, D.
Hayday, Arthur
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Phillipps, Vivian


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hemmerde, E. G.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Potts, John S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richards, R.


Batey, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hill, A.
Riley, Ben


Bonwick, A.
Hinds, John
Ritson, J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Briant, Frank
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Broad, F. A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Brotherton, J.
Hogge, James Myles
Rose, Frank H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Saklatvala, S.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Salter, Dr. A.


Burgess, S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Sexton, James


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Cairns, John
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Snell, Harry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Snowden, Philip


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Kirkwood, D.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Sullivan, J.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dunnico, H.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Ede, James Chuter
Linfield, F. C.
Tout, W. J.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Edmonds, G.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Turner, Ben


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
M'Entee, V. L.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Fairbairn, R. R.
McLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.


Foot, Isaac
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gosling, Harry
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Webb, Sidney


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Millar, J. D.
Weir, L. M.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Morel, E. D.
Westwood, J.


Greenall, T.
Morris, Harold
Wheatley, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Oswald
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Groves, T.
Muir, John W.
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Nichol, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wintringham, Margaret


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Hancock, John George
Paling, W.



Hardie, George D.
Parker, H. (Hanley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Lunn.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment at which I have been looking is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Bodmin Division (Mr. Foot), but as it appears on the Paper, it would not read.

Mr. FOOT: It is in the wrong place, and should read "In Sub-section (1 (a)), leave out the words 'first day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-two' ["in respect of any period before the first day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-two"], and insert instead thereof the words 'fifteenth day of February nineteen hundred and twenty-three.'"

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentle-may say what is the effect?

Mr. FOOT: It raises the point as to the date to which this Bill should be made retrospective, whether it should be made retrospective to the date when the Prime Minister makes a statement in this House or to the date when the Bill itself was introduced. I submit that it does raise an important point upon the question of retrospective law.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I would suggest that that is probably the same Amendment as that which stands just below in the name of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short).

Mr. SPEAKER: I had on my paper a note that it was much to the same purpose. It must come, if at all, after the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Duncan Graham). Perhaps the hon. Member will consult me in the meantime.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: I beg to move, after the word "that" ["Provided that"], to insert a new paragraph:
(a) This Section shall not apply where the tenant was a workman in the employment of the owner of a mine to which the Coal Mines Act, 1911, applies, and the dwelling-house was let to him by such owner or a former owner in consequence of that employment.
We cannot in the case of this Amendment have the argument about the poor landlord or the widow. This Amendment is intended to apply to the case of men occupying colliery company houses, whose rent is deducted weekly or quarterly, and who have had no opportunity of securing the advantages that thousands of other tenants have had during the last few
months, since the decision of the House of Lords was given. I would remind the Attorney-General that the question of the 13 per cent. instalment payments does not apply in this case, for this reason, that the colliery owners have not allowed the tenants of their houses to be in arrear. Notwithstanding what the Attorney-General has said up to the present, the owners have illegally deducted 40 per cent. rent increase from July, 1920, up till the present date from the wages of the men whom they employ, who are occupants of their houses, and they do not require to pay the cost of repairs. They only pay their proportion of the cost of repairs, but they have increased their rent by the 40 per cent., and this applies to many thousands of tenants similarly placed not only in Scotland but also in England and Wales. This is not a purely Scottish question. It affects tenants in mining districts in the three countries.
The Attorney-General cannot give any sound reason why the owners of colliery houses, who have always had skilled advice in these matters, should be allowed to get this increased rent when other house owners have not been able to enforce it. Since the 1920 Act came into operation the miners have had three months' stoppage, and those of them who are occupying houses belonging to the company ran three months in arrear and some of them more than three months. When they resumed work the owners took the increased rent, notwithstanding that they knew that it was illegal. There is no use of the Attorney-General trying to cod us into the belief that the owners did not know that this was an illegal thing to do, because, in 1920, as admitted by the representatives of the house owners themselves, they did get notice that, to make their claim for increased rent legal, it was essential to give notice to quit, and there is not a single case, so far as I know, in Scotland in which the colliery owners gave the mining occupier notice to quit before they enforced the increase in rent. Neither is there a single case in which they did not take the 40 per cent. increase from these men after the stoppage was ended, while making them pay up arrears. There are no arrears here and no possibility of arrears. It is a question whether, even though no attempt was made by this House to overturn the House of Lords decision, the
owners would be prepared to give the mining occupiers back the rent that they have taken from them illegally.
The plea that there is a special case is given as a justification for the manner in which this Bill deals with the whole question. The Attorney-General has carefully pointed out that the Bill does not propose to make retrospective payments of the rent to July, 1920, that it only applies to December of last year. That means that there is a certain proportion of the tenants who have paid the increased rent all that time, and they are to receive no advantage, and a certain other proportion who have refused to pay from the date of the decision of the House of Lords, and they will have this advantage, that the arrears which they will be called on to pay, if the Bill passes in its present form, will be at the rate of 15 per cent. on the standard rent of 1914. The men who are affected by this particular Amendment have not any of the advantages that any of the other tenants have. They are not in arrears. From December to the present day they have been compelled to pay what is admittedly an illegal rent. There is no sheriff in Scotland who will, or can, use his discretion in favour of the tenant occupying a colliery company's house who is being pursued by the owner to get that house. The Attorney-General cannot get out of this argument in the same way as he attempted to get out of the last one, because the employé has got to go. Yet notwithstanding that the British colliery owners have been free of the restrictions which apply to other owners of house property they have taken advantage of their economic strength, and the fact that so many men are unemployed in the mining industry to compel the occupants of these houses to pay a rent which, since the decision of the House of Lords, is illegal.
I hope that the Attorney-General will agree that there is a case for exemption in regard to these tenants. There has been an understanding that the discussion is to be more or less a short one, as I believe it is for the purpose of giving us an opportunity of seeing whether there is any change in the opinion of the Government as compared with when the matter was before us in Committee. Therefore I do not propose to take up
much more time. The Attorney-General had the matter put before him in Committee, and I think that he was to some extent influenced to believe that there was something in this case. I gathered from him then that he was prepared to inquire into the matter, and if he has done so he will admit that the statements which he made were in accord with fact. I have tried to put the case fairly and without exaggeration. We are asking here that the tenants occupying houses which, I was going to say in every case, are uninhabitable—so far as Scotland is concerned it makes no difference whether they are habitable or uninhabitable—shall not have to pay the increased rents to the colliery owners, who have had an advantage which has not been enjoyed by other owners of house property throughout the country, and in accepting this Amendment the Attorney-General will be doing no injustice, and he will not be discriminating in any way unfavourably if he exempts these colliery owners from the operation of this Bill, until at least it has passed into law.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In supporting this Amendment I do not intend to develop any arguments in justification for it. My hon. Friend has indicated clearly the exceptional circumstances dealt with by this proposal. The Bill, taken as a whole, has been justified from the very outset by the plea that the poor property owner would be bankrupt if this Bill were not passed. That argument cannot be used to defeat this Amendment. First of all, all colliery companies which have their own houses, in which they imprison their workmen, are well able to afford the legal aid that they need. When it comes to the point of prosecuting an individual, or where their own particular interests are concerned, they never fail in securing all the legal aid that they require. From the point of view of the moneys that they would, perhaps, be entitled to, that is to say, so far as arrears are concerned, should the Bill pass in its present form, I am convinced that the same weapon as has been used from time to time to impose intolerable conditions upon some miners would also be used to exact the arrears of rent that would accrue under this Bill.
If only for the purpose of retaining for the men the very small element of freedom that they now enjoy, the Attorney-General
ought not to hesitate in expressing approval of this Amendment. One could give individual cases where definite hardship has been imposed upon tenants by colliery companies which own a large number of houses. I do not think that the Attorney-General ought to be an accessory before or after the fact of placing in their hands a further weapon with which to tyrannise over their workmen. The conditions are bad enough at the moment, without attempting to place more power in the hands of the colliery companies. On the other hand, the position of the tenant, already very bad when he happens to be the tenant of a colliery company or of a large employer, ought not to be made worse because of the exclusion of the Amendment now before the House. As has been stated, many arguments can be submitted for and against some of the Amendments that are on the Paper, but in this case I think it would not be possible to justify opposition to what is a very modest Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I accept at once the statement of the Mover of the Amendment that he has presented his case without exaggeration and without undue heat or bias. The case was sympathetically put forward. I am sorry that in spite of that fact I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment. The Mover based his argument on the fact that the colliery companies, who are the people to be affected by this Amendment, are in a position to pay for legal advice, and that, therefore, they must have known that a notice to quit was necessary. The Seconder of the Amendment pointed out that this Bill was in some way giving the colliery owners a weapon with which to tyrannise over their workmen. Though I have listened carefully, I confess that I have failed to find out what advantage any colliery owner could gain by not giving a notice to quit, but by giving notice of increase of rent without notice to quit. How on earth anyone can suggest that the colliery owner puts himself in a better position by giving a notice of increase without a notice to quit, when he knows that a notice to quit is necessary, I am quite unable to understand. Of course, if there were some subtle advantage which the colliery owner would get by omitting to give notice to quit, one would understand the argument that he must have done it knowingly in order to gain that advantage.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: Is the learned Attorney-General not aware that the owners are able to carry out the law, that the law is that they are not entitled to deduct the rent, but that they are deducting it?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We are not quite on the same point.

Mr. GRAHAM: If I am a tenant, as I am, of an ordinary house, I can refuse to pay the increased rent. If I am the tenant of a colliery company's house, I cannot refuse to pay the increased rent. But at many collieries it is being deducted from the men's wages, whether the men will it or not, and that is against the law.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that this Bill will affect the position of colliery owners just as it will affect the position of other house owners, in the sense that it will enable them to retain money which have been paid, so long as they are not in excess of the maximum provided by the 1920 Act.

Mr. GRAHAM: I do not want to interrupt, and I will not do it again. There is no use saying that the money is "paid." It is not paid; it is deducted from the wages.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I was not making any play with the word "pay." I quite accept the statement that the method by which payment is exacted is to deduct the money from the wages. I do not dispute for a moment that, if this Bill becomes law, the colliery owner, just like any other house owner, will be entitled to retain the money which has been paid, either by deduction from wages or in cash, so long as they do not exceed the increases which are prescribed by the 1920 Act. The suggestion has been made that the colliery owner is in a different position from other people, because, whereas other people may have been unable to obtain legal advice and may have acted in ignorance of the law, the colliery owner must have known all along that a notice to quit was necessary, and that he deliberately abstained from giving it. My point is, that it is very difficult to understand what underlies that suggestion. What possible advantage could a colliery owner gain by refraining from giving a notice to quit?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: There is a reply to that question. In many cases the colliery owner would have found that his colliery would have stopped if he had given the notice to quit.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member will believe me, I hope, when I say that I cannot see why. Under the Act of 1920, there is a notice of increase prescribed. That notice, it is assumed, is given. If the colliery owner has not given that notice, this Bill does not help him; he still will not be able to keep any increase which he has exacted, unless he has given the notice which the Act prescribes. Supposing he at the same time had given a notice to quit, what difference could it have made to any miner? Of course, we are assuming that he would have had at the same time explain to the miner that the notice to quit was not intended to be operative. It is one of the absurdities of the result of the 1920 Act that the owner, at the same time as he has to give notice to quit, has to warn the tenant not to be frightened, because the notice means nothing. But I cannot understand, still, why the colliery owner, if he knew that a notice to quit was necessary in order to validate notice of increase, could not have given it. The reason he did not do it, I suggest, is that he thought, like so many other people, that the notice of increase, which is the only thing that the Act apparently prescribes, was all that was required, and he, like other people, I dare say, acting on skilled advice, did not realise that it was necessary.
There is another point which was made. When we were discussing the last Amendment there was put to me more than once the difficulty that the people who have not paid will be put in by this Bill. I was told, "You are imposing, by virtue of this Bill, an additional liability to pay off arears. That is a liability which they cannot endure." So far as collieries are concerned, the miner is in a better position than any other tenant, because there are no arrears to be collected. Therefore, the effect, so far as colliery houses are concerned, will be merely this—that the miner will go on in future paying the same rent as he has been paying in the past. He will not have to add to his payments a weekly sum by way of instalment for arrears, because there are no arrears to be paid. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I really am not trying to be frivolous about this. It is a legitimate point. The suggestion is that some different treatment should be given in the case of miners. One of the difficulties in the case of some classes of tenants is that they will be faced with large sums of arrears, which will increase their rent for a long time to come. By reason of the fact that the statutory increase has been deducted week by week from the rent, so that there are no arrears in the case of miners, the only effect of this Bill will be that the miners will go on paying exactly the same rent for the future as they have paid since July, 1920, and as Parliament intended in 1920 they should be liable to pay. Of course, you cannot get more than the amount permitted by the 1920 Act, either from the miners or from anyone else, if this Bill passes. You cannot legally get it, and if you do get it there is a right of recovery given by the principal Act.
A point made by both hon. Members was that in the case of the miners there was the difficulty that many of the houses were in a shockingly bad condition, and that the miner could not object, because if he went to the County Court he would lose his job. That is a legitimate criticism, and because of that I, in Committee, deliberately accepted or moved an Amendment which rendered it no longer obligatory on a tenant to make an application for suspension of rent, and gave the right to the sanitary authority in any district to apply in respect of any houses which were not reasonably fit for habitation. So that without the miner having to face the odium and risk of making an application himself, the sanitary authority could be set in motion and an order could be made suspending the increase of rent until the house was put into a reasonable state of repair.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: How is it to be set in motion?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: By any friend of the collier, who, if he does not like to do it, can go to the medical officer of health, or by the medical officer who, as the House very well knows, inspects these houses. Anybody can call the attention of the sanitary authority of the district to houses that are not in a proper state of repair, and by virtue of the Amendment introduced in Committee,
the sanitary authority can then take the initiative, and apply for and obtain an order suspending all increases, unless and until these houses are put right. It was in order to protect the position—which was a perfectly fair one put forward by the colliers, that I accepted the Amendment in Committee. I think, in the circumstances, the House cannot reasonably be asked to accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. ROBERTSON: The Attorney-General told us that he could not accept the Amendment. I followed him very closely to see how he would reconcile that position with the reasons advanced by the Government in support of the principle contained in the Bill. That principle is simply this, that the tenant who paid is supposed to have known the law. The tenant who did not pay is not called upon to pay. The Attorney-General has defended that principle, over and over again, but here we have a class of tenants who had no choice. They belong to neither of the categories into which the Government have divided the two sets of tenants, and by which they have justified the most extraordinary principles contained in this Bill. I am not going to argue the rights or wrongs of either class of tenant, but the defence for this Bill is that the tenants who knew, paid, and having paid they are supposed to have known; while the tenants who did not pay are not required to do anything. It would have been much more to the purpose had the Attorney-General tried to square the Bill with the treatment meted out to tenants living in company cottages. I am not trying to say that colliery proprietors are in a different position from other landlords. That is not the question that I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I asked him, and I am asking him now, how he justifies this Bill allowing tenants who paid no rent to go free of rent, while those who paid are held to have known the law?
The men in the company houses are a class of tenant who did not know, and had no choice, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given no answer as to why the Government are treating them in such a way. We are entitled to a reply, otherwise, we shall be forced to the conclusion that it is not a question of putting the matter right as between landlord and tenant, but merely of standing
on the side of the landlord. These men in the company houses had no choice. They may or may not have believed that they were entitled to pay the rent. The House is entitled to hear from the Attorney-General, as spokesman of the Government, why such a large number of men are being treated in an entirely different fashion, owing to circumstances over which they had no control.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I am very much amazed that the Attorney-General refused to answer at least one part of the question put to him by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot the fact that the Act was brought into operation largely because of the increased cost to householders for repairs. That cannot be argued in this case, for, of every particle of repairs done to the company houses, 83 per cent. of the money is paid by the miner, out of his wages. Why owners should be allowed to increase their rents by 40 per cent., because other people have got that right, when they have already got the money out of the miners, I cannot understand. The Attorney-General never mentioned that side of the case at all. In his reply to my hon. Friend, he made play with the question of the notices, and asked what difference it would have made to the miner, as compared with the tenant. The question of notice is important. Had notice been given to all the miners to quit their houses because of the increase, then all these claims would have come to the front. The miners could and would have argued that they had already paid for all these repairs, and that they should not be asked again to pay. If that had been done, it would have been understood.
In my own particular area, we do not pay rent in the way my hon. Friends do in Scotland, Yorkshire, and elsewhere. We have the house as part of our earnings. Whole villages have been condemned by the local sanitary authority as unfit for human habitation, and I take it that very much the same conditions prevail in many villages in Scotland, Yorkshire, and elsewhere. The point is, if you close these houses and turn the people out, where are you going to put them? That
is the problem with which we are always faced. Despite the fact that we are paying for repairs to the colliery owner, even if he does nothing at all to any company cottage which the miner occupies, the Government have a bad case in refusing the Amendment. Surely a few moments' reflection will suffice to convince the Government that where people have paid they should not be called upon to pay twice. Where they have had no notice and could not avoid payment, it is unreasonable and unthinkable. I plead with the Attorney-General to reconsider his decision, and to do justice to the miner who could not help himself.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I listened with amazement to the defence, by the Attorney-General, of his rejection of this Amendment. If I understand his argument aright it is that the collier ought to consider himself lucky, because there will be no rise in rent so far as he is concerned. He has been illegally robbed, since 1920, and after three years of robbery he ought to be content because he will not feel any difference after this Bill is passed. He will not notice any real difference whatever; a thing that was illegal for three years now becomes legal, and the collier, who lives in a company cottage, ought to feel thankful on that account. It seems to me that the Government has not much case for this attitude. Part of the reason given for allowing the increase of rent was the cost of repairs and decorations. I am fairly conversant with the mining districts of our country. I have had a good deal to do with collecting evidence to place before housing committees of one sort or another, particularly in Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, and Durham. I am not exaggerating when I say that there is no class of cottage or house anywhere of such a disreputable character as that provided by wealthy companies for the workers in their mines. I could give illustrations from Lanarkshire and Ayrshire of whole streets of single-roomed cottages and two-roomed cottages, provided by millionaire companies, in which there is not a single sanitary convenience for the whole lot. My hon. Friends here know that that is the case. That evidence is contained in the Blue Books of this House. It has been placed before the Housing Commission, and has
not been denied. To argue that a rise of rent is justifiable on the ground of repairs to property under such conditions is surely straining the English language to the most unjustifiable extent.
I suppose the Government are obdurate and will remain obdurate. When the hon Member for Hamilton opened the discussion on this Amendment, and said he did not think it was possible to find legitimate arguments for its refusal, it struck me that I could find several. I do not know what is the pecuniary advantage accruing to the colliery companies from the rise in rent, got from the unfortunate tenants, but supposing I put the figure at £200,000, I can find 200,000 arguments, which will appeal to hon. Members on the benches opposite, for refusing this Amendment. Every Treasury Note is a very solid argument, and if we are to have this kind of legislation we might as well be frank about the matter. Amendments have been refused because, in other cases, they would operate harshly against the poor widow. When questions of this character are being discussed one would almost think that poor widows carried the British Empire on their backs, for they are always invoked if it is necessary to carry some particular piece of hocus-pocus. If more attention were paid to the protection of the poor widow in other directions, she probably would not be so poor as she is always supposed to be when measures of this description are discussed.
We have been asked not to be harsh with the poor widow and with the poor owners of single cottages, but this is asking us not to be harsh with the millionaire owners of colliery properties. The argument is invoked on behalf of the poor in one case, and on behalf of the rich in the other. As a matter of fact, if this Amendment be rejected it will be no use talking about particular class legislation. The refusal to accept this Amendment is as crass a piece of class legislation as it is possible to imagine, because I agree entirely that no case has been made out showing that the owners have not been acting illegally. I have always understood that lack of knowledge of the British law was never an escape from responsibility for one's omissions. I do not see why, because owners have acted in ignorance, or in defiance, or that, because
of negligence, they have refused or neglected to put the law into operation, they should be allowed to reap a rich harvest at the expense of the men who had no power at all. If this House is just to the occupiers of company houses, particularly in colliery districts, they will

accept this Amendment, and attempt to do even justice so far as this question is concerned.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 239.

Division No. 129.]
AYES.
[8.1 p.m.


Adams, D.
Harris, Percy A.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Phillipps, Vivian


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.


Barker, G, (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Pringle, W. M. R.


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richards, R.


Batey, Joseph
Hemmerde, E. G.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Riley, Ben


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Brotherton, J.
Herriotts, J.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hill, A.
Rose, Frank H.


Buchanan, G.
Hinds, John
Saklatvala, S.


Burgess, S.
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. A.


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Scrymgeour, E.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Sexton, James


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hogge, James Myles
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Snowden, Philip


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Leach, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Linfield, F. C.
Tout, W. J.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lowth, T.
Turner, Ben


Fairbairn, R. R.
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Foot, Isaac
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Gilbert, James Daniel
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gosling, Harry
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Weir, L. M.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Greenall, T.
Millar, J. D.
Wheatley, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morel, E. D.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, Harold
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Groves, T.
Muir, John W.
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Nichol, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.



Hancock, John George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. J.




Robertson.


NOES.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Berry, Sir George
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Betterton, Henry B.
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Butcher, Sir John George


Apsley, Lord
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Button, H. S.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Blundell, F. N.
Cadogan, Major Edward


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cassels, J. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brass, Captain W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Barnston, Major Harry
Brown, Brig. Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Chapman, Sir S.


Becker, Harry
Bruford, R.
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bruton, Sir James
Clarry, Reginald George


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Clayton, G. C.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Remer, J. R.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hudson, Capt. A.
Remnant, Sir James


Cope, Major William
Hume, G. H.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jephcott, A. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Doyle, N. Grattan
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Ednam, Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shepperson, E. W.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lorden, John William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lort-Williams, J.
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lougher, L.
Singleton, J. E.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Foreman, Sir Henry
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sparkes, H. W.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Manville, Edward
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Furness, G. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Goff, Sir R. Park
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Murchison, C. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Tubbs, S. W.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, Captain E.


Halstead, Major D.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wells, S. R.


Harrison, F. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Paget, T. G.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hawke, John Anthony
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Whitla, Sir William


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Pease, William Edwin
Willey, Arthur


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Penny, Frederick George
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Winterton, Earl


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Perring, William George
Wise, Frederick


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Pielou, D. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hoare, Lieut. Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Privett, F. J.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Raeburn, Sir William H.



Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hood, Sir Joseph
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Hopkins, John W. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Gibbs.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), to leave out the words, "first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two" ["in respect of any period before the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two "], and to insert instead thereof the words, "fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-three."
This Amendment raises the point as to how far this legislation is to be retrospective. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General,
will agree with those on this side of the House in deploring that retrospective legislation is sometimes necessary. As, however, there is to be retrospective legislation, the question is the date to which the legislation should be retrospective. The Attorney-General defended the fixing of the date as the 1st December both here and in Committee on the ground that when the subject was discussed in the House on the 30th November the intention of the Government to make the legislation retrospective was brought home
to everybody in the country. What was said in this House on 30th November? A question was put by a Member on this side, who asked the Prime Minister what decision the Government had reached in regard to the House of Lords decision. This was the answer given by the Prime Minister, on which the Attorney-General defends the fixing of the date as 1st December. The Prime Minister said:
A small Cabinet Committee has been appointed to consider this subject, but it is impossible that their report should be ready in time to enable it to be dealt with this Session. I have, however, no doubt that the result of the inquiry will convince the Government that legislation is required, and in that case the necessary legislation will be carried out as early as possible next Session, and it will, of course, be retrospective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1922; col. 901, Vol. 159.]
I would ask the Attorney-General if he will again address his mind to that answer. There is nothing definite about it. There is nothing definite in it that would convince anyone, even a Member of this House, that the 1st December was to be the definite date to which the legislation was to be made retrospective. In the Prime Minister's answer he does not anticipate with any certainty what is the result of the inquiry. He says, "I have no doubt the result of the inquiry will convince the Government that legislation is necessary." However, it is on that answer that the Attorney-General has the temerity to suggest that everybody knew there was to be retrospective legislation as to that date.
I suggest that not one person in a hundred could have known what was the Prime Minister's intention when he answered that question. I am doubtful if the Attorney-General himself knew, and I am doubtful if the Prime Minister knew. If the Prime Minister knew on the 30th November that the date was to be the 1st December why did he not say so, and say that "legislation will be retrospective as from tomorrow"? Yet, what was obviously unknown to the Prime Minister and to the Attorney-General and to all the Members of this House at that time is supposed to have been clear to all the people in the country. There are many tenants who did not see the newspapers, or if they did see the newspapers, they did not see that answer because some of the newspapers did not print it at all.
The issue raised here is whether the Government is to have power by Act of Parliament not merely to upset a decision of the Law Courts, but to fix a purely arbitrary date. I suggest that very much stronger reasons should be advanced on this point by the Attorney-General than those he advanced on the Second Reading and in Committee upstairs. I suggest that we should make a date that is defensible and reasonable, and that we should take the date on which this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. That gave notice to the country that something was to be done, but up to that time there was no clear indication, there was nothing definite. If retrospective legislation does unfortunately become necessary it ought to be very carefully safeguarded, and there ought to be some substantial grounds for deciding on the date back to which we should go. The reasons advanced in favour of the suggested date are not sufficient, and I therefore ask the House to accept the Amendment which stands in my name.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
The argument in favour of inserting the 1st December is that the Prime Minister gave a promise, and apparently because he gave a promise we must make this Act of Parliament date accordingly. If we examine that proposition we shall see how it looks having regard to all the Prime Ministers who have made promises which have not been fulfilled. No Prime Minister should be able to pledge this House, because the House itself sometimes has difficulty in coming to a decision. I do not think there is anything good in this particular Clause, and the creation of a new saints' day in the calendar is certainly not one of the good things in it. I trust the House will consider it a very dangerous principle that merely because somebody suggests something an Act of Parliament should be based on the suggestion. We say that the date inserted should be the 15th February. The Attorney-General had time to consider this question if he cared to meet any of these Amendments, but if he will have his own way in this as in some other matters, I am inclined to think his decision will be like a boomerang and will come back against him. I hope even at this late hour he will see fit to accept the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I remember the occasion on which the Prime Minister made his statement regarding this legislation, and I say without hesitation, nay with every confidence, that not one single Member of this House on that occasion even dreamt for a second that the date he mentioned was a date to be taken seriously and fixed as the date of the commencement of the operation of this Measure. The statement was made in an off-hand fashion—just in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman's speech regarding tranquillity—without any thought or without any real idea of the precedent it created. As a matter of fact, what occurred was this; after the Prime Minister and the Government came to the conclusion that legislation was necessary, they looked about for some peg on which to hang it. They looked about for some excuse and they re-read their old speeches. The right hon. Gentleman happened to re-read a speech of his dealing with this particular proposal made on this particular date and thereupon fixed the date accordingly.
The whole principle of this legislation is bad, but when we create the precedent that if a man comes into this Chamber, makes a speech in an off-hand fashion and mentions a date in connection with a Bill which affects the lives of many thousands of people, that that date is to be accepted as fixed—then it seems to me, we are coming near to making legislation a farce. I could have seen the force of the Government bringing in a Bill indemnifying the landlords completely, or I could have seen grounds for making the Bill operate as from the date on which it becomes an Act, but to strike on this peculiar date seems to me to be without any reason at all. Had the Government indemnified the landlords it would, at any rate, have carried conviction to the many thousands of working people who still, to some extent, I am sorry to say, support the Conservative party. It would have proved to them, without the shadow of a doubt, that the party of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General was purely a landlords' and masters' party, which is framing this proposal in such a way as to try to maintain the last remnant of its claim to be considered a democratic party. In my younger days I used to think that the Conservative party, whatever its faults, was attempting to carry out legislation in a fair way.

Mr. MAXTON: You must have been very young, then!

Mr. BUCHANAN: I held those view, in any case, at a time when the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health held contrary views.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member seems to be developing a very large argument.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was drawn aside from the question before the House when I looked across at the kind face of the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health. In the days to which I refer, I think, a majority of the people of the country thought the Conservative party was in favour of honest legislation, yet here we have that party putting forward this patchwork proposal and suggesting a date upon which nobody can depend. Take the case of the City of Glasgow. The majority of the Corporation are not of our way of thinking, but they agree that 1st December is not a suitable date and should not be given effect to. The proposal is also bad, because it goes too far back, and there was no definite guarantee at that time. I could have understood it, had the Prime Minister said with deliberation and conviction, after consulting his colleagues in the Cabinet, "We intend to introduce a Bill which will operate and have effect as from 1st December." But, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman rose without having had notice of the question put to him, and he could not have consulted his colleagues, and, apparently without giving the matter any thought, he made the statement as to the 1st December. Now we are told that is the reason why the date should be included in this Bill.

Mr. FOOT: It was a Private Notice Question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In that case, I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Apart from that, however, the answer given in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I looked up to-day, certainly did not convey the impression that the Measure was to operate from that date. I went through the OFFICIAL REPORT this forenoon, and I put it to two people who are not Members of Parliament but who have some knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, what they would take to be the meaning of the answer. Both of them
suggested to me that the meaning now being given to it could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be conveyed. I think, on the whole, that the Bill ought to operate from a much later date, but I know the ways of Parliament and that, more or less, you build up on compromise. It is the history of all parties. It was the history of the right hon. Gentleman who sits below the Gangway (Mr. Lloyd George), even when his party were in power. You have constantly to compromise with the other side, to give and take, and it will possibly be the way when our party comes into power, although I hope not. Here we are, however, at the present time offering an extremely reasonable compromise to the Government, to accept, not until the Bill becomes an Act, but midway between the two dates. We offer it as a reasonable way out. If you carry it with the date as it is, it means that thousands of my constituents will suffer, and represent possibly the poorest district in the whole country. Nobody who has not actually been there can describe the poverty-stricken area I represent.
Nobody can describe what havoc this Bill will play, and particularly relating to the date, in the Division that I represent, and it is because I feel that, from the humane point of view, it would be an honourable thing and a big thing on the part of the Attorney-General to concede this, that I put this plea before him. Nobody can imagine how those poor people are reading the debates on this question, more than all the debates on foreign policy or all the other questions that come before this House. They are looking at the Government at the present time, and here they are with a decision that may affect their homes. In that spirit I would appeal to the Attorney-General, with all the earnestness at my command and with all the conviction that I can carry, and I appeal also to the Under-Secretary of Health for Scotland, who knows some of the conditions and knows the havoc that will be played if that date operates, for the sake, not of his own party, or even of the Labour party, or any other party in this House, but for the sake of poor down-trodden humanity, at least to concede this point in the hope of ameliorating the conditions under which they are living. It would be the greatest thing that this Government
are ever likely to do in their history, a thing that would be read with the greatest happiness to-morrow in all our newspapers in Scotland, the news that the Government had conceded this comparatively minor point.
You can choose between two courses. You can either concede this point and help the poor people, or refuse to concede it and help the fairly well-to-do landlords. They may not be too well-to-do, but if you concede this point to us not one single landlord will be without a home or without a breakfast when the Bill becomes an Act, whereas, if you do not concede it, thousands of poor people will be both homeless and foodless, and I appeal to you, for the sake of humanity, not to make anybody homeless. I am sure the Attorney-General, with his own family knowledge, with his love of his own children, with his love of his own wife, would never sit complacently in his seat in this House if he thought anything was going to interfere with their home conditions or with anything regarding them. The Under-Secretary of Health for Scotland would, I am sure, indignant if he thought that even one of his constituents was in danger of becoming in that plight, and I would earnestly urge the Government even at the last moment, to give way on this point. There is nothing I have found in my trade union work or my work here which makes me think it would be undignified to alter my decision at the last minute. I do not think there is any degradation in coming to a decision, even favourable to us, at the last moment. Nay, on the other hand, if the Government altered their mind at the present time they would show a largeness of heart, a bigness of spirit, with which, I am afraid, the masses of the people do not credit them at the moment. I ask my hon. Friends who occupy the Front Government Bench to concede this point at this late hour, and so help, not to save themselves or us, but to save the mass, not even of women and men—I am not so much concerned with them—but the children, who ought to be free at least from the anxiety of being without a home.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We could not have had a more eloquent or moving appeal than the one to which we have just listened—from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). It was spoken with obvious sincerity and was
one which, if anything could have persuaded us, would certainly be calculated to do it, but we have, on this side, to try and hold the balance, as we think, fairly, and I hope the hon. Member will believe me when I say that we are not without sympathy for the people who are poor and downtrodden and in difficulties. It is not because we are regardless of their difficulties that this legislation, or any other legislation for which we are responsible, is introduced. We have here to meet what seems to us a real grievance and a real difficulty. The hon. Member has spoken as if we were imposing upon those for whom he was pleading the whole burden of the retrospective effect of the principal Act.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In most cases you are.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Let me remind the hon. Member that the people of whom he is speaking are people who, he says, in order to comply with the provisions of this Act, will have to go without almost the necessities of life. What he is presumably saying is that the result of our legislation will be so to increase the burdens under which they are now labouring as to render them almost intolerable. It is in order to avoid that, that the Government have chosen what we think is the last possible date to choose for the commencement of the operation of this Act. The House will remember that the principal Act goes back to July, 1920. We are saying that any sums recovered by tenants, or unpaid by tenants, up to 1st December, 1922, shall not be recoverable from them; that is to say, 2½ years out of something less than the three years, which is the total span of time from the date of the principal Act down to the present time. Why have we taken 1st December? The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), in moving this Amendment, was quite right in saying that the Prime Minister's speech did not specify the date from which the Act would commence to operate, but I think the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division did the Prime Minister a little less than justice when he said that his speech must have been given without consideration. As evidence of that fact, he said it was delivered in the same sort of way as his speech about tranquillity,
which, if my memory does not fail me, was the official pronouncement of the Government—not quite the best illustration of what you would call an unconsidered statement.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We have not had much tranquillity, anyhow. If tranquillity is the considered judgment of the Government, it has been a very poor one, and unjustified by the circumstances which have followed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not want to be led astray by a discussion on tranquillity, but I would remind the hon. Member that it was not tranquillity for ourselves at which we were aiming. Tranquillity was an object for the country, and not for the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be getting a long way from the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is a rebuke which is very well deserved. The reason we adopted the date 1st December, 1922, was that the Prime Minister on that date—or, rather, on the 30th November, and the newspapers reported it on the 1st December—stated quite definitely in this House that legislation would be necessary, and that, of course, it would be retrospective. It is perfectly true he did not say how far back it would go. I do not suppose at that time he had definitely decided how far back it should go, and was considering the matter, but the latest date to which it could go back, obviously, if it was to be retrospective on the 30th November, would be a date not later than the 30th November, and we have, therefore, selected, in the interests of the tenant, a date which some people, at any rate, think is too lenient to the tenant and too hard on the landlord, namely, the date on which the Prime Minister made the announcement that legislation was going to be retrospective, because from that date everybody knew that legislation was going to be introduced. We have here a date which some people think is unduly hard on the landlord, and as to which some hold the opinion which has been so eloquently put before the House by the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan). I venture to submit that we could not fairly have done less than we have done, and that we have made a compromise in a very reasonable and generous spirit.

Mr. PRINGLE: I do not intend to follow the example of the learned Attorney-General, and make a disorderly and irrelevant speech. I wish to confine myself exclusively to the subject of the Amendment with which, in the latter part of his speech, he dealt. He endeavoured once more to defend the selection of the 1st December as the date in respect of which this Bill is to be retrospective. I contend that not only was there nothing in the Prime Minister's reply to indicate that the 1st December was to be the date but that a contrary impression prevailed outside, that a contrary impression was being disseminated in Scotland, and two questions on subsequent days were put by hon. Members on the Labour Benches to elicit the exact intentions of the Government. The First Commissioner of Works, who was then replying on behalf of the Scottish Office, refused to give any information to the House. I will call attention to those replies. On the 11th December, 1922, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Nichol) put this question to the First Commissioner of Works as representing the Secretary for Scotland:
Whether he is aware that house factors in Glasgow and the West of Scotland have issued letters to tenants stating that the present Government, through the Prime Minister, has given to the country indication that proprietors will not be called upon to refund rents under the Kerr v. Bryde decision, and demanding continued payment of the increase of rent decreed to be illegal; and whether he will take steps to have the confusion in this matter cleared up?
That was a clear attempt to obtain a definite statement from the Government. The reply of the First Commissioner of Works—it was a written answer—was:
My Noble Friend has no information as to the action which is said to have been taken by house factors in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. He is unable to add to the statements on the position arising out of the Kerr v. Bryde decision which has been made by the Prime Minister." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1922; col. 2386, Vol. 159.]
On the 12th December, the same hon. Member put a question which received an oral reply. It dealt with very much the same set of facts, and the hon. Member asked again whether steps would be taken to have the confusion in this matter cleared up. Once more the First Commissioner of Works said:
My Noble Friend has had his attention drawn to a case in which a Glasgow house factor has issued a letter of the kind referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on this subject yesterday." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1922; col. 2576, Vol. 159.]
I say, in view of those answers, there was obviously no intention to make the 1st December the critical date in regard to the retrospective action. The Government themselves at the time refused to give any indication of their view. I would be prepared to admit that if the Prime Minister had said that this would be retrospective as from that date, the Attorney-General would have a good case. Something similar happened in regard to the principal Act, when a definite statement was made that that Act would have effect as from the term beginning the 25th March, 1920, and the Bill was immediately introduced. But here you have no such definite statement, and I say, therefore, in these circumstances, if you are to have a retroactive effect, it must be at the utmost the day on which the Bill was introduced. I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the attitude of his colleague yesterday on this matter. I made a suggestion in regard to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Continuance) Bill, and the Minister of Health said it was a most extraordinary suggestion to make, and held me up to the derision of the House for making it. We can claim consistency in this matter; we suggest that in both Measures the same principle should be applied. You have no right, apart from an express declaration, to make your Bill retrospective beyond the date of its introduction. There has been no express declaration in this case. Instead of an express declaration, we have a declaration which admittedly created confusion in the West of Scotland. In these circumstances, I think the House should insist that the date selected is not an arbitrarily chosen date, but the date of the introduction of the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 153.

Division No. 130.]
AYES.
[8.47 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Furness, G. J.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pease, William Edwin


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Penny, Frederick George


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Perring, William George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pielou, D. P.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Privett, F. J.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Becker, Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raine, W.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Halstead, Major D.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Aitrincham)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Berry, Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Betterton, Henry B.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Remer, J. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harrison, F. C.
Remnant, Sir James


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Harvey, Major S. E.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Hawke, John Anthony
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brass, Captain W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Bruford, R.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bruton, Sir James
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bull, St. Hon. Sir William James
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Butcher, Sir John George
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cadogan, Major-Edward
Hudson, Capt. A.
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hume, G. H.
Singleton, J. E.


Cassels, J. D.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sparkes, H. W.


Chapman, Sir S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Clarry, Reginald George
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Clayton, G. C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lamb, J. Q.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cope, Major William
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lorden, John William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lort-Williams, J.
Tubbs, S. W.


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Lougher, L.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Wallace, Captain E.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D, Steel-
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Wells, S. R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Manville, Edward
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Whitla, Sir William


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Willey, Arthur


Ednam, Viscount
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Winterton, Earl


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Wise, Frederick


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wolmer, Viscount


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Frece, Sir Walter de
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel




Gibbs.




NOES.


Adams, D.
Batey, Joseph
Broad, F. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Brotherton, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bonwick, A.
Buchanan, G.


Barnes, A.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Burgess, S.




Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Herriotts, J.
Richards, R.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hill, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cairns, John
Hinds, John
Riley, Ben


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Collie, Sir John
Hogge, James Myles
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Rose, Frank H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Irving, Dan
Saklatvala, S.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Salter, Dr. A.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Sexton, James


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Dunnico, H.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Snell, Harry


Ede, James Chuter
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Philip


Edge, Captain Sir William
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Fairbairn, R. R.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Leach, W.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Gosling, Harry
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Linfield, F. C.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lunn, William
Turner, Ben


Greenall, T.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
M'Entee, V. L.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Groves, T.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grundy, T. W.
Millar, J. D.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Morel, E. D.
Weir, L. M.


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Westwood, J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Muir, John W.
Wheatley, J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Newbold, J. T. W.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Hancock, John George
Nichol, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Hardie, George D.
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wright, W.


Hemmerde, E. G.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)



Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Phillipps, Vivian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Potts, John S.
Sir A. Marshall ad Mr. Isaac




Foot.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the word "before" and to insert instead thereof the words
against a landlord between the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and—.
This is a very simple Amendment, and I do not think it need take up much time. In paragraph (b) it is laid down that
nothing in this Act shall affect the right to enforce any judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction given before the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.
The object of my Amendment is to limit those judgments which are to be stabilised to those obtained against the landlord by tenants prior to the 15th February. My case is that in Glasgow it was quite common, where the very poor people were sued for arrears of rent during the period covered by the recent dispute, to grant a decree for the sum in excess of nine months' rent and rates combined where the party appeared in court, the assumption
of the Sheriff being that nine months was approximately equal to the improperly increased rent, and should be deducted from the amount sued for. But where the tenant did not appear in court the Sheriff had no option but to grant a decree for the full sum which included the improperly imposed increases. A considerable amount of hardship is being done to a very poor section of the community. Many of these cases were defended by women who had very little knowledge of the law, and owing to the continued stress of unemployment, found themselves in a position of hopelessness and despair, and in many cases they really felt there was nothing to be gained by putting up a defence, and they did not attend the courts. The words which I desire to put in are quoted from a statement made by the Attorney-General himself when we were discussing this point in Committee, when he stated that
the object of the Clause was simple and solely to prevent tenants who got judgments from the landlord between the 1st of
December, 1922, and the 15th February, 1923, from having these judgments made void.
He said that was simply and solely the object of the Clause, and I am now asking the Attorney-General to put in the Bill the promise he made to the Committee. I have moved the Amendment in his own words in the hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.0 P.M.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The proposal of the hon. Member to draw a distinction between judgments obtained against the landlord and any other judgments is not in itself easy to understand, and the hon. Gentleman has not suggested any reason for drawing such a distinction, nor has he given any reason why he should take the date of the 1st. December, 1922, and why we should enact that judgments obtained between the 1st December, 1922, and the 15th February, 1923, obtained against the landlord should be effective, and no other judgment against the landlord should hold good. I do not follow what the hon. Gentleman has quoted, and I am afraid that he has misapprehended what the Attorney-General stated in Committee, at least, that is my impression so far as I have followed the Report of the proceedings in Committee. The distinction between judgments obtained before the 1st December, 1922, and those obtained between the 1st February, 1923, is not one which is founded upon any just principle, and in spite of what the hon. Member has suggested, I cannot accept that statement which he has made as being the opinion of the Attorney- General, and I am not able to accept this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph—
(c) Where a notice to increase rent has been served on a tenant who has thereafter given up possession and a subsequent tenant has contracted to pay rent within the limits permitted by the principal Act, nothing in this Act shall validate any increases on the standard rent which had been recovered from the landlord before the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, unless a notice to quit was served before the date of the operation of the increases on a former tenant of the house or on the tenant so contracting.
This is an attempt to put the tenants who have become occupiers since the 1920 Act came into operation on exactly the same footing as those who were tenants before the 2nd July, 1920. Let me explain this point. When a case went to the court in Scotland in which the tenant had not been the occupier of the house at the 2nd July, 1920, the court held that, as he had become an occupier since that date, he had thereby accepted full liability for the increased rent. In other words, the period between the old tenant going out and the new tenant coming in was a period within which the owner was entitled to enter into possession, and that was the reason why the notice to quit was not essential. The result has been that these new tenants who have recovered the improperly imposed increases in the usual manner are now being pressed by the owners for these sums to be paid up. Instead of what was intended we now find an exactly opposite state of affairs existing, and the object of my Amendment is to assimilate the law of Scotland to that of the law of England and save pending litigation.
According to the decision in the King's Bench Division on 20th February, 1922, it was held that a new tenant is in exactly the same position as a tenant who was in possession on the 2nd July, 1920. As the Bill stands all those English tenants who have recovered the increase of rents under the King's Bench Division judgment will be in danger of being sued by the owner to pay up all those increases. If the Bill is allowed to go through as it stands to-day you will have endless trouble in England, and you will probably be landed into a rent strike on a scale that we have not experienced or even contemplated in the past. I am appealing to the Government to accept this Amendment, and lay down that the law will be the same in both countries, and that a tenant who has entered the house since the 2nd July, 1920, shall have all the rights and privileges of a tenant who occupied the house prior to that date, and that unless a notice to quit was served on the present tenant of the house, or on a former tenant since the 2nd July, 1920, that the landlord shall have no power to recover from a tenant any sums which the tenant has obtained from the landlord by deductions from rent as a means of recovering those improperly imposed
increases. I hope the Solicitor-General will see his way to accept this Amendment, because if he does not he is going to deprive the English tenant of sums of money which the Government never intended to deprive them of, and it will lead to endless trouble.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The intention of this Amendment is, as I understand it, to give a tenant who has entered into a house of which the previous tenant has given up possession all the rights the previous tenant would have had. That goes a considerable way

beyond the intention of the Bill, which is to deal with one particular defect in the previous Rent Restriction Act and its consequences. This proposal, so far as I understand it, is not necessary to make plain any provision of the law with regard to tenancies which have come into existence after the first tenant has given up occupation, and it is not an Amendment which, although it may be strictly permissible, is really within the scope of the Bill, and I cannot accept it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 227.

Division No. 131.]
AYES.
[9.10 p.m.


Adams, D.
Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hastings, Patrick
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Phillipps, Vivian


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hemmerde, E. G.
Richards, R.


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Riley, Ben


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Herriotts, J.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brotherton, J.
Hill, A.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hinds, John
Rose, Frank H.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, S.


Burgess, S.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Salter, Dr. A.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cairns, John
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Cape, Thomas
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Chapple, W. A.
Irving, Dan
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Philip


Collie, Sir John
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Stephen, Campbell


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Darbishire, C. W.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Sullivan, J.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Turner, Ben


Duffy, T. Gavan
Leach, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Ede, James Chuter
Linfield, F. C.
Warne, G. H.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fairbairn, R. R.
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Webb, Sidney


Falconer, J.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Foot, Isaac
M'Entee, V. L.
Weir, L. M.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
McLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Millar, J. D.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morel, E. D.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Muir, John W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wright, W.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Newbold, J. T. W.



Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Nichol, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Grady, Captain James
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Morgan


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Jones.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.



NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Pease, William Edwin


Barnston, Major Harry
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Becker, Harry
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Frederick George


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Perring, William George


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pielou, D. P.


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Betterton, Henry B.
Halstead, Major D.
Privett, F. J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Aitrincham)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hancock, John George
Raine, W.


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Harrison, F. C.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Remer, J. R.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hawke, John Anthony
Remnant, Sir James


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bruford, R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bruton, Sir James
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rothschild, Lionel de


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butcher, Sir John George
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Russell, William (Bolton)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hood, Sir Joseph
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Cassels, J. D.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Singleton, J. E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Clayton, G. C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jephcott, A. R.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Sparkes, H. W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cope, Major William
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lorden, John William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lort-Williams, J.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lougher, L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Tubbs, S. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Doyle, N. Grattan
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Wallace, Captain E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ednam, Viscount
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Manville, Edward
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, R. G.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Mercer, Colonel H.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Whitla, Sir William


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Willey, Arthur


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Winterton, Earl


Fildes, Henry
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wise, Frederick


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wolmer, Viscount


Foreman, Sir Henry
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Furness, G. J.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)



Galbraith, J. F. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John
Paget, T. G.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Goff, Sir R. Park
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Gibbs.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add a new Sub-section—
(3) 'Increase of rent' means increase over the standard rent permitted by the principal Act.
My object in moving this Amendment is to get a clear statement embodied in the Bill as to what is really meant by the phrase "increase in rent," because we have had varying decisions in the Law Courts on the point. I want it to be laid
down that it means increase of rent over the standard rent permitted by the Act. I think the Solicitor-General will agree that, in a Bill dealing with increases which may be retained by a tenant, some finite definition of what those increases are must be given. Otherwise, you are bound to have litigation, and the prime object of this Bill was to clarify legislation, to inform the tenants and the owners exactly what the law was. All the trouble is alleged to have arisen from ambiguous legislation which people could not understand. As things are at present, the decisions which are being given in England are not similar to those which are being given in Scotland. In England a tenant, in calculating the increases of rent, was entitled to take into account every penny paid in excess of the standard rent, which is, of course, the rent of 1914; and those increases, in England, might run up to 65 per cent. In Scotland, on the other hand, the Sheriffs have given conflicting opinions In one case it was held that all that could be taken into account was the 40 per cent., and that no account could be taken of the amounts that had been imposed to cover increases that had occurred in the rates on the house. One decision was given in Dumbarton, and another in Hamilton, by Scottish Sheriffs, and those are now the subject of a contemplated appeal to the House of Lords. I am appealing to the Solicitor-General to make the intention of this Bill clear by a finite definition of exactly what is meant by the phrase "increase of rent," and I want him to accept, as a definition of that phrase, everything above the standard rent imposed in 1914.

Mr. GROVES: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The proposal of the hon. Member is really to do something which, if I may say so, is unnecessary. I have great respect for the hon. Member's learning in these matters, and, as I understand it, the point of his Amendment is, that the Scottish decisions have not uniformly followed some of the English decisions.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Or one another.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is my misfortune that, although I am indifferently acquainted with English law, I
am still less acquainted with Scottish law. All I can say is, that the definition which the hon. Member proposes to insert is really implicit in the operative Clauses of the Act of 1920. The expression "increase of rent" is consistently used throughout that Act, and, so far as I know, has never been understood otherwise than as meaning the increase which a landlord might desire to make over the standard rent. As the hon. Member knows, the increases are by the Act limited, of course, to those specified in the Act.

Mr. WHEATLEY: May I put a case? The Sheriff at Hamilton laid it down that an increase imposed to meet an increase in rates was not an increase in rent, whereas the other Sheriffs have held it was.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Sheriff's decision to which the hon Member refers may or may not be a right decision. It would not be proper for me, in my place, to express an opinion as to the correctness of a legal decision given by one individual Sheriff in Scotland. I can only say that the definition appears to me to be quite unnecessary. It is really, as I have said, expressed in the Act, and I do not think that, apart from the decision that the hon. Member has mentioned, anyone would have understood the phrase in the original Act to have any other meaning.

Mr. MacDONALD: This is, surely, an instance of how very improper it is for the Government to get this Bill through without a Law Officer versed in Scottish law being on the Front Bench.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There is a Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Mr. MacDONALD: Then, surely, as the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) referred to Scottish law, it would have been far better if the lawyer versed in Scottish law had taken the matter in hand. I am not a lawyer, either Scottish or English, but my hon. Friend makes the statement that the Scottish decisions are not in accord with each other—that you have a Sheriff here declaring that rent is this, and you have a Sheriff there declaring that rent is that—and that although a definition of the standard rent or the increase of rent may
be employed in the original Act of 1920 nevertheless these facts do occur. If we do not define what an increase of rent is according to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, then I suppose these Scottish cases must go to higher courts, to the unnecesary expense of those concerned in them. If, as the Solicitor-General said, it is the intention of this House to define the standard rent as that rent which was paid before the 1920 Act, and the increases in that rent be meant to include increases in payments owing to increases of rates, if there is any doubt about why not say so now? Surely it is our business to stop useless litigation. One or other of these sheriffs is right and one or other of these sheriffs is wrong, and if the Government's mind is perfectly clear as to what it means by an increase of rent and there is going to be continued litigation to make other people's minds clear on the subject, it is the duty of the Government to make it specific in this amending Act. I do hope that in dealing with this matter of legislation and law in which Scotland is so much interested we shall have the benefit of the advice of the Scottish Law Officers, because apparently they alone can tell us exactly where we stand in this matter.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): I am not familiar with the decision referred to, but I cannot think that, on the terms of the Act, there can be any doubt about it. The words being used in the same sense are perfectly clear throughout.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Surely this is a very unsatisfactory state of things. Here we are discussing a Bill the main purpose of which is to deal with the situation which arose in Scotland owing to the bad drafting of the earlier Bill. That is where we stand to-day, and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) declares, and gives chapter and verse for the declaration, that some Scottish Courts have decided that increase of rent is defined in a way that the English Courts do not use. He therefore proposes to define the term. The Scottish Law Officer, on whom I think the main onus of defending this Bill should rest because it deals with Scotland, in a very brief and transient appearance at the Treasury Box says he does not think there is anything in the point. He says
he is not familiar with the case put by the hon. Member for Shettleston. Surely it is reducing legislation, I will not say to a farce, but to a point that is not very creditable to the Government that on this Bill, which is mainly Scottish, the only contribution should be these entirely uncertain one or two sentences by the Scottish Solicitor-General which lead us nowhere, and give us no help whatever.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I should like to press this point. If there is any ambiguity in the terms, surely this is the opportunity and the time when it should be cleared up because if a decision has been given in one court upon the meaning of the term "rent" and another decision has been given in another court the time and opportunity for clearing away that ambiguity are now when we are dealing with this very question. Is it to be said that when an ambiguity like that exists and the opportunity like this exists the Solicitor-General is not competent to say what definition this term is to have in this particular Act? If we are passing the Bill there should be no ambiguity, and I press the Solicitor-General to accept this, or to give us a definition which will remove all doubt.

Mr. HARDIE: I would like to dwell still further on the cases that have been quoted. It is a tremendous pity that we coming from Scotland find we are in the hands of those who quite openly confess that they do not understand the law of Scotland nor the practice so far as house-letting is concerned. What we have been fighting in Scotland is this. Some factors try to get the tenants to understand that when the costs for repairs in a house go up they have to meet that by increased rent, and they try to work on the poor, innocent, souls that when rates and taxes go up they have also to be compensated out of rent. What we want in this Bill is a clear understanding that whatever the sum named as rent it shall be for the use of certain premises. We want it quite clear that no factor or anyone letting premises shall be able to pass the burden of that which is not in any sense rent on to the tenant of the premises. We have to get that quite clear. If you take the distance between Hamilton and Glasgow, a distance of 10 miles, or you take the distance between Dumbarton and Glasgow, a distance of 19 miles, yet in those three areas you have men learned
in the law giving judgments and not one coinciding with the other. We want to get out of this quagmire. It is all very well for those in the legal profession to have things like that to create work. If we were to solve the unemployment problem on those lines we should not have many unemployed. The Scotsman is Nature's lawyer. He is a logical man, and he wants to get something in this Bill which when he reads he can understand insted of having to go and pay for the advice of a lawyer. What we are pressing for is that the language shall not be that seen through the eyes of the English lawyers, but language which shall be understood by every Scots man and woman who reads it. We do not want this indefinite legal phraseology which seems to be characteristic of all the English Bills, and if we had a strong logical Government on the other side we would not to-night be sitting without our chief representative in Scottish law being on those benches. It seems to be another sign of the great weakness of this Government that a Bill of such importance as this should be in the hands of a solicitor in charge of the Bill who stands up and plainly confesses that he has no knowledge of what the thing deals with, since he has no knowledge of the law. We are going to press this and if we do not get it now we shall take other means.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I really think, if the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) will forgive me, that this is, I was going to say a really unnecessary mare's nest, but that may sound disrespectful.

Mr. J. JONES: It is a hog's-nest!

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is evident that the Sub-section he proposes to introduce is a Sub-section to say that "increase of rent" means increase over the standard rent permitted by the principal Act. The expression "increase of rent" occurs, as far as I know, in only two places in that Act, and it there appears, not by itself, but with a qualification—
Any increase of rent made valid by this Act is hereinafter referred to as a validated increase of rent.
With all respect to hon. Members opposite, even in Scotland, I should have
thought that the natural lawyers of that country could not possibly have found any ambiguity in that.

Sir WILLIAM RAEBURN: They do.

Mr. WHEATLEY: This is a case, not of a natural lawyer, but of a professional lawyer, a sheriff. He has decided that a landlord is entitled to add to the standard 1914 rent the increased rates, and that the tenant is only entitled to deduct what is in excess of that combined sum.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sorry that I was not in the House when he was speaking, but I had to be away at the time. As I understand the decision it is this, that the increased rates, which are one of the things which the 1920 Act enables you to add, are to be treated as increased rent under the 1920 Act. Assuming that decision to be given, and assuming it to conflict, as I think it must, with other decisions, obviously it is a matter which ought to be put right more cheaply than by going to a Court of Appeal to determine. But it is not in this Act that we can put it right, because this Act does not amend the principal Act. We are going in the next six weeks—I think it was promised—or at any rate in a very short time, to introduce a Bill which is going to deal with the principal Act and amend it. If the hon. Gentleman would be so very kind as to send to me particulars of the case—I am not in the least challenging the accuracy of his report, but naturally one likes to look into it—I will undertake to look into it, and if there is any ambiguity it shall be put right in the Bill which is going to be brought in. But for the purposes of this Bill, it is not necessary, because this Bill does not use the words "increase of rent" by themselves. It only uses the expression
any increase of rent made valid by this Act.
It is not necessary for the purposes of this Bill to have a definition Clause. All this Bill does is to say that the notice to quit objection shall not affect the validity of a landlord's claim.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Surely it also entitles a tenant to retain sums recovered prior to the 1st December, 1922, and if that sum
is to be limited by the decision referred to, then that decision is a matter which should be dealt with here.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Bill does not give the tenant the right to retain sums before the 1st December, 1922. What it does is to say that it shall not give the landlord the right to get those sums from the tenant. This Bill does not say that the tenant shall retain any money. What it says is that the landlord shall not be entitled by virtue of this Bill to recover certain moneys from the tenant. If he is entitled to recover from the tenant independently of this Bill, he will still be entitled to recover it after the Bill is passed. If he is not entitled to recover it, he will still not be entitled to recover it. All that this Bill does is to say that from the 1st December, 1922, certain moneys shall be recoverable, but that under this Bill the landlord shall not be entitled to recover moneys before that. Therefore, it is not necessary, for the purpose of this Bill, to have the definition which has been suggested, and I think that I am meeting the hon. Member fairly if I say that, with regard to the principal Act, if he gives me the decision referred to, I will look into it and, if necessary, see that it is put right.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask whether the rent which the landlord is entitled to recover is not, if my hon. Friend's presentation of the facts is accurate, an unknown quantity, and, therefore, until the Amendment of the principal Act becomes an Act of Parliament, that quantity will remain unknown? Surely from that point of view it should be for the convenience of the public that a definition should come in here.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The rent which the landlord is entitled to recover is quite a well-known quantity, even in spite of that decision. Under the 1920 Act there are four main heads, in respect of which the landlord is entitled to increased rent—structural alterations, repairs, 15 per cent., and the rates. As I understand, the Sheriff held that, whether or not a notice to quit had been given, increased rates can be recovered. Therefore if that be so, then the only effect of the Bill will be to enable the landlord to recover the other three. If that is wrong, then the landlord by virtue
of this Bill is entitled to recover all four. In that case he recovers all four. In one case he recovers it by virtue of this Bill, and in the other case he recovers it by virtue of the Sheriff's decision. He gets the same amount in either case. If there is any ambiguity of the kind, it ought to be put right when we come to the other Bill.

Mr. NICHOL: I think that the Attorney-General ought to put in this definition, because from another point of view a very large amount of ambiguity has arisen from the phrase. Last July when the case, having passed from the Court of Session in Edinburgh, was pending an appeal to the House of Lords, it was part of my work to investigate more than 1,100 rent books. I spent more than a month going over these rent books, and I found that about 730 of them were confused on this particular issue. It is all very well in this House, when we have all the details before us and the structure of the Bill has been debated for days, to say what it means. But from the tenant's point of view, all that appears is the actual figure of the increase, and when the tenant goes to the factor all these arguments have been introduced, and so far as litigation is concerned, if it had not been the case that the principal test case was going through the Court at that time, I am certain that of these 730 cases we could easily, if the tenants had been in a position to face the cost, have contested successfully in the Courts more than 600 of them.
From that point of view I suggest that the Attorney-General ought to make this point clear. This is an amending Act. It is going to refer to the moneys from the dates mentioned in this Bill, and the controversies that are going to arise as to the amount of that money are going specifically to relate to the increase of rent, and this Act will be the Act to affect these things. From that point of view I make the appeal that the definition which has been suggested should be adopted. Apart altogether from the case or two that have come to light in the Courts, I can assure the Attorney-General that there are hundreds of other cases, and we have in many cases prevented the tenant from going into the Law Courts because of the enormous amount of money and time that the thing would cost. In hundreds of these cases
I persuaded the tenant concerned to delay any action until the principal test case had gone through. It is not true that there was not a possibility of thousands of cases. The fact is that those of us who were interested in this test case were actually persuading people not to go barging into the Courts until the main case was got out of the way. This particular point is a point on which litigation is possible in thousands of cases as the matter stands now. From that point of view I suggest that there is an overwhelming case for the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) has alluded to the position that arises under the House Letting Act of 1911, where the occupier's rates became payable by the owner. That was for houses under a particular value, under £21 in towns of 50,000 inhabitants, with smaller limitations where the populations were smaller. By the House Letting and Rating Act of 1920 any increase

over the previous year in occupiers' assessments which are payable by the owner are deemed to be a lawful addition to the rent for the whole of the year for which increased assessments were imposed. There is a question as to whether these increases fall under Kerr v. Bryde and under Clause 3 of the principal Act. I have not got particulars of the case in the Hamilton Sheriff Court. That is a matter outside the scope of the present Bill. I should have thought that the increases of rent under the 1920 House Letting Act—that is where the occupiers' assessments for one year are higher than the year before—did not fall under the Kerr v. Bryde decision. But that is a matter which will be adjudicated on in the Court, and it is entirely outside the scope of this Bill. Therefore, the matter being perfectly plain under the 1920 Act, there is no need for the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 241.

Division No. 132.]
AYES.
[9.50 p.m.


Adams, D.
Groves, T.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
M'Entee, V. L.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
McLaren, Andrew


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Barnes, A.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Millar, J. D.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Muir, John W.


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hancock, John George
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Bonwick, A.
Hardie, George D.
Newbold, J. T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Nichol, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Hastings, Patrick
O'Grady, Captain James


Brotherton, J.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Oliver, George Harold


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.


Buchanan, G.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Burgess, S.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Phillipps, Vivian


Cairns, John
Herriotts, J.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Cape, Thomas
Hill, A.
Potts, John S.


Chappie, W. A.
Hinds, John
Pringle, W. M. R.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Richards, R.


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Riley, Ben


Darbishire, C. W.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Ritson, J.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Rose, Frank H.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Saklatvala, S.


Dunnico, H.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Salter, Dr. A.


Ede, James Chuter
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scrymgeour, E.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Sexton, James


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Falconer, J.
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Foot, Isaac
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Philip


Gosling, Harry
Leach, W.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, F.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Stephen, Campbell


Greenall, T.
Linfield, F. C.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Turner, Ben
Weir, L. M.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Wallhead, Richard C.
Westwood, J.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Wheatley, J.
Wright, W.


Warne, G. H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)



Watson, W. M. (Dunlermline)
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Morgan


Webb, Sidney
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Jones.


Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)



NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mercer, Colonel H.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Foreman, Sir Henry
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forestier-Walker, L.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Frece, Sir Walter de
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Furness, G. J.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Barnston, Major Harry
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Becker, Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Garland, C. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Berry, Sir George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Paget, T. G.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pease, William Edwin


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Halstead, Major D.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Penny, Frederick George


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perring, William George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, F. C.
Pielou, D. P.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, Major S. E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hawke, John Anthony
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Privett, F. J.


Bruford, R.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, W.


Bruton, Sir James
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Buckingham, Sir H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Remer, J. R.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Remnant, Sir James


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Button, H. S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hertford)


Cassels, J. D.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hopkins, John W. W.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hume, G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Russell, William (Bolton)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Clayton, G. C.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cope, Major William
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Singleton, J. E.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Lamb, J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sparkes, H. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lorden, John William
Steel, Major S. Strang


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lougher, L.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Ednam, Viscount
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Ellis, R. G.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Manville, Edward
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)




Thomson, F. C (Aberdeen, South)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Titchfield, Marquess of
White, Col. G. O. (Southport)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Whitla, Sir William
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Tubbs, S. W.
Willey, Arthur
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)



Wallace, Captain E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Winterton, Earl
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Wise, Frederick
Gibbs.


Wells, S. R.
Wolmer, Viscount

CLAUSE 2.—(Payment of arrears by instalments.)

(1).—(i) The tenant may at any time pay to the landlord the full amount of such arrears subject to the deduction of the aggregate amount of the instalments (if any) already paid; and

(3) The notice shall be in the form contained in the Schedule to this Act, or in a form substantially to the same effect, and the landlord shall furnish him with details in writing showing how the amount claimed is arrived at, and how the amount of the instalments has been calculated.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment I call upon is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn)—in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "standard" ["per cent. of the standard rent"]. Does the hon. Member desire to move that Amendment?

Sir W. RAEBURN: I do not wish to move that Amendment. I rise to a point of Order with regard to a former Amendment standing in my name, which has been disallowed. It proposes to put back the date of the end of the instalment period to 23rd February. It is, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the following new Sub-section:
(3) In the application of this Act to Scotland the landlord shall be entitled to claim from the assessing authorities a rebate on the assessments payable by him as owner for the year of assessment terminating at Whitsunday, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, of such proportion thereof as has been imposed in respect of any validated increases of rent for the period from the commencement of the said year of assessment to the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two.
My reason for doing this is that the Government gave a concession upstairs, and the Attorney-General said quite plainly that they were going to press on the Bill, and that they exepected it would be on the Statute Book by the middle of April. It will not be on the Statute Book, if I can judge aright, this month, and it is a very great injustice indeed to those
who were relying on the 23rd February. This is going to put back the hands of the clock in instalments for one whole year, and I thought my Amendment would have been very much in Order on the Report stage, subject to what we agreed in Committee upstairs, because of the date of 15th April being held out to us. It makes all the difference in the world, and the 15th April may be turned into the 15th June. That is the reason why I put this Amendment down. Of course, I submit at once to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it was worth while to explain why this was put down, when there was not a Division on it upstairs.

Mr. SPEAKER: The fact that this Amendment was rejected by the Committee upstairs without a Division added to my decision not to re-open the matter at this stage.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, i), after the word "to" ["arrears subject to the deductions"], to insert the words "ten per cent. discount for cash and after."
10.0 P.M.
It would appear that an Amendment of this kind ought to be acceptable to the Government, and I am not without hope that they may, on this occasion, give us some concession. Up to the present, to-day we have received no concession at all from them. This will not cost the Government anything, and I do not think it will offend their dignity in the least. Although this may appear a very trivial matter, it has some substance in it. It will be said from the Government Benches that the tenant and the landlord may make an arrangement like this voluntarily. From my experience of discussing this Bill, I think there is very little hope of anything being done voluntarily by the landlord. I want the tenant to have the opportunity, if he is able financially so to do, to pay the amount he would otherwise pay in instalments in a lump sum, and to have some encouragement to do so by way of a 10 per cent. discount. I shall be told there
is nothing in law at all on these lines, but I would point out that practically in every municipality, in order to collect the accounts in respect of gas, electricity, and in some cases the rates, there is a discount in respect to lump sums paid on any given date.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment is always sanguine, but I am afraid he will be disappointed again. I ought to tell the House that this question of discount was raised and discussed in the Committee, but at that time hon. Members opposite were more modest, because they asked for 5 per cent. I have turned up the discussion, and I find that the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden), speaking on the Amendment said:
The danger of giving these concessions is that these gentlemen will keep on and on, and probably if it is 5 per cent. this morning, you will find that to-morrow it will be something in the nature of 10 per cent.
Evidently my hon. Friend is something of a prophet.

Mr. STEPHEN: Next Tuesday, it will be 15 per cent.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the House will consider for a moment, they will see that really we cannot accept this. It is an Amendment having the effect of compelling the landlord—who is, by the provisions of this Bill, already compelled to wait for some four or five years to get the whole of his money—at any time to give in addition to all that time, 10 per cent. for cash for being paid money which is, sometimes, perhaps three or four years overdue. That is not a reasonable suggestion. It was argued in Committee that many landlords would be glad to get the money at a discount of 5 per cent. No doubt that is true, and there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent their getting their cash at a discount of 5 per cent., if they like to agree to it. What we are unable to accept is an Amendment which compels the landlord to give 10 per cent. if, at any time, a tenant chooses to pay the balance of arrears. That is not reasonable, when one remembers that the tenant will not be paying in advance, but will be paying
money which is already overdue, and is only being spread over instalments over a long period of time because of the fact that the tenant is, as a rule, not in a position to pay the money which he owes, and is unable to pay it except by small instalments. If he wants to make an arrangement he can do so, but I cannot agree to this being put into the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "him" ["the landlord shall furnish him with details in writing"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the tenant."
The Bill was amended in Committee by altering the form of notice the landlord had to give so as to make him give further particulars to the tenant. Unfortunately, in the alteration we omitted to notice a slight consequential phrase in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. That reads, "The notice shall be in the form contained in the Schedule to this Act, or in a form substantially to the same effect, and the landlord shall furnish him with details," and so on. The word "him" is not grammar, and I want to put in the words "the tenant."

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to suspend liability if premises unfit for human habitation or in state of disrepair.)

(1) A tenant, who becomes by virtue of this Act liable to pay any sum by way of rent or on account of arrears, or the sanitary authority, may apply to the County Court for an order suspending such liability on the ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation or that it is otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair, and Section two of the principal Act shall apply as if the application had been made under Sub-section (2) of that Section.

(2) Where the liability in respect of the payment of instalments is so suspended, the instalments which would have become payable during the period of suspension, shall for the purpose of calculating the aggregate amount of instalments paid be deemed to have been paid.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Fairbairn: In Sub-section (1) to leave out the words:
or the sanitary authority, may apply to the County Court for an order suspending such liability on the ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for
human habitation or that it is otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair, and Section two of the principal Act shall apply as if the application had been made under Sub-section (2) of that Section,
and to insert thereof the words
may apply to the County Court, or at his option to the sanitary authority of the district in which the house in question is situate, for an order suspending such liability on the ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, or that it is otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair; which order the County Court or the sanitary authority is hereby empowered to make.

Mr. SPEAKER: With reference to this Clause, there are two Amendments which more or less deal with the same point. The first one in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Fairbairn) is not in the correct Parliamentary form, and that is why I pass it over, and call the second one. The hon. Member for Worcester can state his case on the second one.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "or" ["arrears or the sanitary authority"] and to insert instead thereof the words "may apply to."
The question I want to raise on this Amendment is that of the increase of rent in regard to insanitary premises. In the course of the discussions in this House, whenever insanitary houses were referred to, the Attorney-General has invariably risen and pointed to the fact that within the four corners of this Bill he had protected the occupiers of insanitary dwellings from having to pay the increased rent. I have no doubt that the Attorney-General intends to give these people that protection. What I am submitting to him here is that the present provisions in actual practice do not protect these tenants at all. I think I have the general sympathy of the House in this, that where a habitation is certified by the local medical officer of health as not reasonably fit for occupancy, no increased rent should be imposed on that dwelling. It was clearly the intention of the Act of Parliament that that should be the case. But what do we find in actual practice? The course the occupier of insanitary property has to adopt is this. He first of all applies to the sanitary authorities for a certificate that his dwelling-house is not reasonably fit
for human habitation. But possession of that certificate is not sufficient to entitle him to withhold the increase of rent. He must follow that up by raising an action in the Court against the owner and showing the certificate as a weighty piece of evidence in favour of his application for suspension of the increase. In the working out of that we get up against a serious difficulty.
As the Attorney-General is aware, we have in Scotland, as in England, two forms of courts. We have what we call in Scotland a Small Debt Court, and we have the Ordinary Court, and the expense of raising an action in these courts differs widely. If an action has been raised in a Small Debt Court, the initial expenditure consists of the procuring and issuing of a summons at a total expenditure of about 6s. 6d., and even if the litigant loses his case, the total expenditure that might be involved would be a small sum to the witnesses and a small fee to the opposing agent. The expense would seldom exceed a guinea, and hardly, if ever, exceed two guineas. But a tenant cannot go to that court with an application for the suspension of the increase of rent, because there is no form in that Small Debt Court in Scotland by which he can take this procedure. He must raise an action in the ordinary court, and when an action is raised there he enters upon an endless field of expenditure.
The Attorney-General made a good deal of the point that if a tenant, either through ignorance or poverty, might be unable to raise this action in Court, the local authority has been empowered in this Bill to raise that action. But I want to tell the Attorney-General that in actual practice the local authorities have found that almost impossible. The Glasgow Town Council are sympathetic to the unfortunate inhabitants of these dwellings, and they want to protect them against the impositions to which I have referred. They undertook the responsibility of raising an action, but, after their experience of one case, they have dropped it. They raised an action and the landlord appealed against their decision, and the case dragged on and on, and before it was finished the owner had to put his house into a state of repair. The course was so cumbersome and so costly, that I am officially informed that the Corporation have not gone beyond their test case.
I am not laying down any form of words, but if I can get the Attorney-General to agree to this proposal the form of words can be drafted. I submit to him that he is not conceding anything if he accepts the Amendment that would delegate to a Committee the powers of the local authority. What I am submitting is that in actual practice these powers are useless for the purpose. I propose that when a tenant applies to the sanitary authority and gets a certificate that his house is not in a reasonably fit state of repair that that should be accepted as primâ facie evidence of the condition of the house, and that possession of that certificate from the sanitary authority should entitle the tenant to withhold the increase of rent until the owner satisfies the Court he has put his house into a habitable state. That would shift the onus of initiating proceedings from the tenant to the owner. But it would do something more. It would change the Court from the Ordinary Court to the Small Debt Court. A tenant having withheld the increase of rent, the owner would be compelled to sue him in the Small Debt Court, and in that Court the case would be decided on the lower rate of expense. That, I think, is a perfectly reasonable appeal to make to the Attorney-General. Consider the two classes of people with whom you are dealing. On the one side, you have the most helpless section of the community, the poverty-stricken, unfortunate inhabitants of the slums; and, on the other hand, you have the owners of these houses which are not fit, according to our medical officers, for human habitation, which should not in their present state be profit-making subjects at all, but which are allowed to be profit-making subjects and to be inhabited because of the unfortunate shortage of houses leaving no alternative accommodation. We ask that the onus of proving that the houses are habitable should be put on the owner, where the tenant is in a position to produce a certificate to the contrary from the sanitary authority. I appeal to the Attorney-General to accept that alteration in the law, in whatever form of words he thinks will be suitable.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment. Anyone who has had experience on a local authority which is
dealing with the slum problem knows that problem to be the big part of the trouble with which we are endeavouring to deal. For many years I was a member of a local authority and we had in our area houses which were condemned 10 years previously as unfit for human habitation. But we were held up; we could not close up the houses because there was nowhere else for the people to go, although certificates were granted. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) referred entirely to the procedure in a big city like Glasgow, but take the case of smaller towns situated perhaps 50 miles away from the Sheriff Court town; consider what it means for a poor tenant living in a miserable slum habitation in such a town to take the necessary action. If he gets a certificate, he is compelled to go to the Sheriff Court, perhaps a day's journey away, at tremendous expense, and after he has got his decision, it is not worth anything at all. I hope the Attorney-General will take a sympathetic view of this proposal. We ask that the onus of proof shall be shifted from the tenant of the insanitary house on to the proprietor of the insanitary house, and that the court powers shall be changed from the Sheriff Court which is a costly court, to the Small Debt court which is held periodically in all the large towns. It would mean that justice would be cheaper and it would mean that justice, for the first time, would be effective. It would mean that the purpose which we understand the Attorney-General has in view, namely, to stop the slum owner from securing the increase of rent, will be achieved.
I was in one house along with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) where an eviction took place. They had lifted a sick woman from a bed four stories up, in a place which had been condemned eight years previously. This occurred in the absence of her husband, who had been unemployed for a number of years, and who was, at the time, out looking for work. This man was a total abstainer from alcohol; nobody could say a word against his character, but he was unfortunate enough to be out of work; he was living in a slum house, and he had not been able to pay the rent. They lifted this poor woman out of the house and laid her on an ash-pit, and the medical officer testified that during the time she lay there, an infant in a little box which was a substitute for a cradle,
was bitten in the cheek by a huge rat. That infernal, stinking, foul, foetid den had its 40 per cent. increase imposed, and there is no means whatever of stopping that sort of thing, unless this Amendment, or some such Amendment, is accepted by the Government. If they do not accept it the local authorities, and I speak for the smaller towns, are absolutely unable to deal with condemned insanitary property. I repeat what was said the other day by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. James Stewart), that the nation, the State, the community is losing millions of pounds per annum in the peoples' health, because of our inability to deal with the slum problem which is crushing local authorities.
I would very earnestly appeal to the Attorney-General, even if it be at some slight sacrifice of the Government's amour propre, even if it cause them some slight trouble in redrafting the Clause, to appreciate the seriousness of this matter. This is apart altogether from the ordinary debates about increases of rent for tenants, some of whom may be able to pay. This is dealing with people who are absolutely down and out; they are unable to pay. They are living in places that are officially certified as unsuitable for human habitation, and unless the Attorney-General so amends the regulations and procedure as to enable the local authorities and the inhabitants of these slum dwellings to put pressure to bear upon the proprietors—and they will do that by stopping the 40 per cent. increase—it will be very many years before you will be able to take your population out of these slum houses. The State will lose millions of pounds and thousands of lives, and the limbs, and the bodies, and the minds of hundreds and thousands of people will be permanently poisoned. I appeal to the Attorney-General to accept the Amendment.

Mr. FAIRBAIRN: I am sure we are all impressed by these terrible stories from Scotland, but I rise, representing an English constituency, to make the same claim for the English constituencies. I understand that the Amendment in my name is not in strict Parliamentary form, but I warmly support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley). In my constituency the same state of things obtains.
These poor people do not go to the County Court, they cannot understand the formalities of the County Court, they cannot pay the expenses of the County Court, and it seems to me that the sanitary authority are the best judges of the condition of the houses, and their certificate, when given, ought to be effective, without the tenant having to go to the County Court with it. I urge this in the name of my corporation, and I want to join in the appeal to the Attorney-General. This is not a political or a party matter. My corporation is a Tory corporation of the Toriest, but I am speaking here on behalf of my corporation. [An HON. MEMBER: "What corporation is that?"] Worcester. Hon. Members ought to remember Worcester. There are so many of these poor people who are paying a 40 per cent. increase when the repairs have not been carried out, who have a right to look to Parliament for protection, and I appeal to the Attorney-General to say that for once, in this matter, some concession can be made. I want to point out that it was on the Attorney-General's own Motion that the sanitary authority was put in—it was an Amendment in Committee—and having done that, I think the Government ought to take the logical consequences of their own action and do what they can by accepting this Amendment, or some similar Amendment, to enable the sanitary authority's certificate to be sufficient justification for withholding the increase in rent where the repairs have not been carried out. Tenants do not go to the County Court; in fact, they like to keep away from it. But these poorer people would have no hesitation whatever in approaching their local authority through the sanitary or health committee. I submit that, as people will not go to the County Court, they should be permitted to go to the sanitary authority in some way, which, I am sure, the Attorney-General could devise, if he would only make us this one concession—we have had none up to now—in the interests of the poorer people.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the House will do the Government the justice at least of recognising that they have not, in introducing this Bill, been unmindful of the fact that there were
houses out of repair, on which account the landlord ought not to be entitled to increase, because it was one of the original proposals of the Bill by Clause 3 that that should be a ground for refusing the increase. The House will remember also that an Amendment has been introduced, I think at my instance, in Committee, in order to make it easier for the suspension to be obtained, because it was represented—as the hon. Member who has just sat down has represented—that the poorer classes would not be in a position either to find the money or to have the expert knowledge to go to the County Court, and therefore would be deprived of the opportunity of getting their suspension. In order to meet that, I introduced an Amendment which empowers the sanitary authority itself to apply. Therefore, if my hon. Friend tells us, as he does, that his corporation are anxious about this matter, I have put the remedy in their own hands, because they can apply, in every case in which they think there is any justification, for application to a County Court for themselves, on behalf of the tenant.
There is a different point, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment. It was pointed out that the expense of going to the Sheriff Court in Scotland was very considerable, and that the matter could be very much more expeditiously dealt with by going to the Small Debt Court. He said that it saved money, and rendered it much more easy to get the suspension where it ought to be granted, and he reminded us of a case where one of the great corporations had tried the experiment of going to the Sheriff Court, and had decided that the expense was too great to justify their going again. I do not think the suggestion has been made before of going to the Small Debt Court. I am speaking now about Scottish procedure, of which I am profoundly ignorant, but I recognise that it may very well be that there is, perhaps, in Scotland, undue expense incurred by going to a more cumbersome Court than that best suited to a matter of this kind. I cannot at this moment accept an Amendment to substitute the Small Debt Court, because I do not know enough about Scottish procedure
to know whether such a Court would be a proper tribunal to deal with a matter of this kind.

Mr. JOHNSTON: You cannot apply to the Small Debt Court unless for a small debt, but the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), by putting the power in the hands of a sanitary authority to give a certificate, would have the effect of enabling the tenant to refuse to pay the increase, and the owner would then be compelled to sue the tenant in the Small Debt Court.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite appreciate that point, but I hope I shall be able to point out that it does not affect the Amendment. What I was going to say was that I shall seek advice as to whether it is not possible that jurisdiction may be offered by this Act to allow an application to be made to the Small Debt Court. I do not know whether or not it can be done, but if it should appear that it can be done then I will see if an Amendment cannot be brought forward in another place, to add words to the effect that the County Court, or in Scotland the Small Debt Court, shall be the place of application, and that I suppose would get over the difficulty of the instances put forward by the hon. Member for Shettleston. I am coming to the suggestion of the hon. Member, and I will point out why I do not think it would be fair, or one that could be accepted. I am quite sympathetic to the suggestion that if facility could be given for obtaining a judicial decision as to a house being beyond repair, I am anxious to ensure that that judicial decision should be obtainable with the least possible expense and trouble. It was for that purpose, as the House will perhaps remember, that in Committee I introduced a Clause which enabled the sanitary authority to make the application, and it is for that reason that. I am going to see, in response to the hon. Member—if he accepts my suggestion—whether or not we cannot give power to the Small Debt- Court to give a certificate and thereby save the expense to which he has referred. When, however, he goes on further to suggest, as he does by the Amendment, that if the tenant goes to the sanitary authority and that authority gives a certificate that that shall ipso facto prevent the landlord from ever getting any increase of rent. [HON.
MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Will hon. Members allow me to call attention to the Amendment to leave out the word "or" and to insert the words "apply to"?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Take the other Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am coming to the other Amendment. I will take the two together as they are intended to work together—
A tenant who becomes by virtue of this Act liable to pay any sum by way of rent or on account of arrears may apply to the sanitary authority for an order suspending such liability—
Then come the words
on the ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation or that it is otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair, and Section ten of the principal Act shall apply as if the application had been under Sub-section (2) of that Section.
Then we come to the other words
If the authority as a result of such aplication issues such certificate as aforesaid the liability of the tenant to pay such rent or arrears shall be suspended until such time as the landlord is able to satisfy the County Court that the grounds on which the certificate was granted have ceased to exist, and that the certificate should be cancelled.

HON. MEMBERS: That is quite reasonable!

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think I was quite accurate in what I was saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that the effect of the Amendment would be this, that the tenant applies to the sanitary authority, and if the sanitary authority issues the certificate ipso facto, the very fact of its issue prevents the landlord from recovering his increased rent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the further words?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think I have read the words of the Amendment. I am explaining to the House what the effect will be if the tenant applies to the sanitary authority and the tenant gets a certificate which would ipso facto suspend the right of the landlord to recover any increase of rent, and the landlord would then never be able to get any increase of rent until he had made an application to the County Court and
satisfied the County Court that the grounds on which the certificate was granted had ceased to exist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am going to say why I think not. The first reason is that, in my experience as a lawyer, and I think the experience of most people who have had to do with public affairs, it has always been considered unfair that a man should be condemned without being heard. The House will appreciate, if this Amendment is carried, since application to the sanitary authority must ipso facto suspend the increase, the landlord would find his rent suspended without knowing that an application had been made against him; and after the suspension was granted—it might be quite wrongly—he could not get it reversed. He could only apply to the County Court, and when the case came on, perhaps after a considerable period of time, he would have to satisfy the County Court that the grounds on which the certificate was granted had ceased to exist, whereas the real case might be that they had never existed at all. Even if the landlord proved that they had not existed, he would not get the rent for the period for which it had been suspended. That does not seem to me a reasonable or fair position in which to put anybody. I am really anxious that a house out of repair shall not entitle the landlord to get the increase of rent, but I am also anxious that an Order which penalises him in that way shall not be made without the landlord has had an opportunity of being heard.

Mr. J. STEWART: That is the law at the present time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member will perhaps forgive me if I say that it is not the law. Nowhere that I know of does the law provide that a judgment can be given against a man who has never had a chance of being heard.

Mr. STEWART: But the landlord can be heard before the sanitary authority has given the certificate.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Does the Attorney-General wish this House to believe that a sanitary inspector, at the present time, can close a house which he says is unfit for habitation without the proprietor of that house having an opportunity of being heard?

Mr. FAIRBAIRN: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him this question? Does he mean to suggest that any responsible sanitary authority in England—I know nothing about Scotland—would make an order under this Clause without inviting the landlord to be heard before they did so?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There is no question here of making an order. As I have already said, so far as I know, neither in England nor in Scotland can a man be condemned unheard, and before a closing order can be made there must not only be an application to the sanitary authority, but it must be heard by a magistrate, and it is simply that procedure that I am insisting upon in this case; but there is nothing, certainly in England—I do not know about Scotland, but I should think the same applies there—to prevent a sanitary authority, on the application of a tenant, certifying that a house is not in a proper condition of repair, and, in fact, a medical officer of health does certify, without having made inquiry of the landlord at all. Hon. Members who are landlords may have had that happen to them.

Mr. J. STEWART: May I, as the convener of a health committee dealing with this matter, say that the procedure is that the corporation hears its officials, and decides to issue a closing order, but, before that closing order is dealt with, the person concerned, either the factor or the landlord, is summoned to a meeting of the authority. They are heard, the case is stated to them in their presence, and, after they have been heard, the closing order is issued by the authority. But that does not finish it. The landlord or factor concerned has the right of appeal to the sheriff against the issue of that closing order. When the sheriff has heard the case and issued his judgment, then the closing order becomes effective. But why is that closing order issued? Because the house is insanitary; and when the tenant makes application for his certificate, it, can only be issued after such procedure has been gone through—not merely on the application of the tenant.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member will forgive me when I point out that that is the very thing that I am emphasising. At present in Scotland, so he tells me, and in England, as I know,
before you can get an effective closing order the landlord has an opportunity of being heard. But this is not a Clause which provides that after a closing order has been made by the Court the rent shall be suspended. If that were the proposal I should not see very much objection to it, except that in the interests of the tenant it would be unfair, because at present you can get the rent increase suspended if the house is not in a reasonable state of repair, whereas under the other proposal you would have to go so far as to get an actual closing order before you could get the increase suspended. It would operate against the tenant. The point I am trying to make, and which I want the House to appreciate, is that under the proposal of the hon. Member for Shettleston, which is the proposal of this Amendment, no closing order is required, but merely that the statement of the sanitary authority that they certify that the house is not in a reasonable state of repair shall of itself operate as a suspension of the rent.
As hon. Members know, the certificate can be applied for—and the tenant is so told in the very form of notice which, under this Act, as the House will see in the Schedule, is provided—the tenant can apply to the sanitary authority and on payment of a shilling get the certificate of the sanitary authority, if they see fit to issue it. There is no provision for any hearing of the landlord, and in practice, as far as I know, no such hearing takes place before the certificate is issued. What I am anxious to provide for is that, if a case can be made good, then, as cheaply as possible, it shall be adjudicated. What I am anxious to prevent is that the order shall become operative, suspending the right to receive the right to receive rent, without a hearing and without the landlord having had a chance to say anything. That is the effect of the Amendment as it stands, and the mistake which hon. Members opposite seem to insist on making is to confuse the issue of a certificate, which is provided for in the principal Act and in this Measure, with the issue of a closing order, which is a very different proceeding, and which, of course, involves a judicial inquiry before it becomes effective. If the hon. Member had proposed that after the closing order had been made by the Court the rent should be suspended, I should have no objection except that I
do not think it would operate in the interest of the tenants, whose interests the hon. Member is anxious to safeguard. I rose at this early stage because I was anxious to give what I hoped might be a possible concession, though I could not embody it at this stage, namely, to meet the point the hon. Member made of the expense of applying to the County Court and the Sheriff's Court in Scotland, and I was anxious, if I could, to obviate that by providing that the Small Debt Court should deal with it if it turns out on inquiry that that is a practical course. The effect will be this. On the notice of the increase of rent the tenant is told he has a right to apply to the sanitary authority for a certificate, which will cost him a shilling and he will get the shilling back. The moment he gets the certificate he can apply to the County Court, or if he cannot afford it the sanitary authority can itself on his behalf apply to the County Court for an Order suspending the increase, and the effect of that will be that on the hearing of that application the certificate itself is primâ facie evidence, so the burden which the hon. Member for Shettleston is anxious to put upon the landlord is in fact imposed on him of showing that the certificate was wrongly issued. When these precautions are taken we have adequately safeguarded the position. I agree it is a considerable alteration from the position we originally took up when the Bill was introduced. I have made these alterations because I am as anxious as any hon. Member opposite that houses which are not properly kept in repair shall not have these increases, and it is in order to ensure that that I am taking every measure I can reasonably think of to provide that where houses are wrong it shall be possible to suspend the increase of rent cheaply and effectively either by the tenant or by the local authority on his behalf. I think the precautions we have put in are adequate, and I cannot accept an Amendment which departs from what I regard as a fundamental principle of British justice, namely, that a man shall be heard before he is condemned.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Would it influence the Attorney-General if I gave him evidence of a case where the procedure that he has outlined cost over £20?

Mr. HOHLER: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider a court of summary jurisdiction?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot at the moment give a definite pledge one way or the other, because I had thought the County Court acted, at any rate in England, fairly satisfactorily, but I will certainly consider the suggestion of a court of summary jurisdiction if the House thinks that would be more effective. My only object is to ensure that some judicial court shall decide upon this matter before there is any suspension order made.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Although we are very much obliged to the Attorney-General for promising that in another place he may make certain Amendments, especially regarding Scotland, which will mean that the case will be heard before the Small Debt Court rather than before the Sheriff Court, I think we must express our profound disappointment at the way he has met the hon. Member for Shettleston. It may be quite true what he says of the wording of the Amendment, that there will be no personal hearing of the landlord. Two or three words would make that alteration. "On notice being given to the landlord," inserted at the proper place, will secure what the learned Attorney-General wants. This is a point of great substance. Eeveryone knows who has any experience at all in the administration of slum property that the reasons that slums have persisted so long has been that the landlord has never yet been put by the law in a state of defence. The matter has been allowed to drag on, and drag on, and drag on, sanitary authorities without sufficient power, tenants without sufficient opportunity to take the landlord to court, and in the end even today, and with reference to this property about which the learned Attorney has been so tender, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has told us of property which 10 years ago was the subject of condemning certificates, but which is still being inhabited, and not only inhabited but subject to the increase of 40 per cent. allowed by the principal Act of 1920. That is a state of things that I am perfectly certain the learned Attorney-General does not feel in his heart called upon to defend.
Take a case in my own constituency, which has been put into my hand. There are two rows of houses in a small mining village which are, I believe, about 100 years old. They have been subject to the increases of rent, and not one halfpenny has been spent on improvements, or to put them into a truly habitable condition. No repairs have been done, although rents have been increased and charges made for repairs.
In one neighbour's house the kitchen window dare not be touched as the frame would drop to pieces, it is so rotten. Some of the neighbours have to place baths on the stair landing to catch the water when it rains. The houses, as a matter of fact, should be pulled down.
What is the position of the tenants of those houses under this Bill? First of all, they themselves must take the owner of these houses, who has already pocketed the rents, into the County Court. They cannot do it. That is the first thing. If they do take him into the County Court the expenses are so great and the conditions are so unfamiliar to these people that they not only hesitate before doing it, but cannot do it successfully except on very rare occasions. I had the great pleasure and equally great profit of spending an evening not long ago with one of the best-known and most respected of our County Court judges, and with him were two equally well-known and equally highly-respected Registrars of County Courts, while in addition there was a medical officer in the company. We met for the purpose of discussing precisely this point, and the opinion of them all without any equivocation or qualification was that to give the tenants occupying slum property, or property that ought not to be inhabited on account of its evil condition, the power to take the landlord to the County Court was really putting into an Act of Parliament words which never eventuated nor could eventuate. The second point is that these people, further, may apply to the sanitary authority, and the sanitary authority itself may apply to the County Court. In this case again I am perfectly certain that the learned Attorney-General has no idea that that is going to be an effective way of dealing with the matter. What is going to happen? The tenant for the purpose of getting his rent reduced applies to the sanitary inspector, but not for a certificate
he is going to use himself. If a tenant could use the certificate effectively there might be something indeed to justify the proposition. The proposition is that the sanitary authority puts itself in the position of the prosecuting authority against the landlord. Is that going to be done? How can it be done in any number of cases?

Mr. LORDEN: It is done. I have experience of a local authority.

Mr. MacDONALD: So have I. Of course, it is done occasionally, but the very fact that local authorities have not been able to put into operation the power to clear slums shows that this is going to be ineffective. Of course, I understand the hon. Member's point. His interests do not appear to be the interests of the tenant—

Mr. LORDEN: The hon. Member has no right to say that. I have been a member of a local authority, and I know that many landlords are proceeded against direct by the local authority.

Mr. McENTEE: Many sanitary officers have been discharged, because they tried to put it into effect. The Chairman is very often a slum landlord.

Mr. MacDONALD: I know that slum landlords are sometimes proceeded against, but—

Major MALONE: Every week in London.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. MacDONALD: Every week in London thousands of landlords ought to be proceeded against and are not. That is true of every borough in the country. The attitude of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden) led me into an expression which I would rather not have used, but if I have trespassed in comment in the House, I withdraw. But there is the point. The policy of the Government is this. It puts the onus of action upon the tenant or upon the sanitary authority on a matter not of the reconstruction of houses, not for the purpose of enabling the sanitary authority to carry out its duty, but for the secondary purpose of enabling the tenant to get some benefit under this Bill. That is not the right way to do it. The hon. Member for Shettleston makes a proposal which changers the proposal of the Attorney-General. My hon. Friend says that the sanitary
authority, which is the authority on the condition of the property, which judges whether it is habitable or not, should issue a certificate after the landlord is heard. Put in any form of words you like to secure that, and we all support it. Make all the provisions and conditions secure, so far as the Attorney-General thinks they are necessary, but let him put the onus, not on the tenant, but on the landlord. Let the Attorney-General deal, not with the smaller points, but with the substantial point that so long as a tenant, a slum tenant, a poor man or woman, is compelled to live in houses in the condition described in Clause 3, so long injustice will be done. The only way to secure justice for these people is to say to the landlord: "If the sanitary authority issues a certificate, after hearing you, that your property is not up to the standard contemplated by the House of Commons when it passed Clause 3, the tenant is to get protection without going to the expense and the uncertainty of an action in the Courts."

Mr. LORDEN: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the withdrawal that he has made. I want to put this case to the House: A certificate is granted ex parte by the sanitary inspector. I will give an instance which was brought to my notice a little while ago. A tenant who had got not as nicely decorated a house as she desired called in the sanitary inspector, who issued a certificate that certain things were not to his liking. The owner sent back the certificate to the medical officer of health with the statement that he was prepared to do everything to make the house in a sanitary state and fit for human habitation, but that he was not prepared to do decorations such as the tenant required.

Mr. MAXTON: An imaginary case. All imagination!

Mr. LORDEN: It is not imagination. I can, if necessary, give chapter and verse. This was a case, not of slum property, but of a very good class of house. The medical officer went and saw the property, and then wrote to the owner, "I am sorry that you have been troubled. The notice is withdrawn." The local authority is not a judicial body; it has no means of hearing evidence. Under this Amendment the local authority would become
a court of law, instead of carrying out its function in looking after sanitation, road-making, and so forth. I want to show how wicked and wrong it would be to put into the hands of a sanitary authority power to issue these certificates. I do not know much about Scottish conditions. Evidently what they have in Scotland may be something very different, but it cannot apply to England, as you will see from the evidence I have given, which I am prepared to prove up to the hilt and for which I can give chapter and verse. It was brought to me as a flagrant case under the Rent Restrictions Act, and it was put right in that way.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to correct the last speaker in so far as the orders made by the sanitary inspector are concerned. In the first place, they do not apply to decorations at all. Let me illustrate that fact. I was for five years on the Glasgow Town Council, which is about the second in size, and the first in importance. What occurs is that all your sanitary authorities insist on is not decorations at all, but that the place shall be reasonably fit for people to live in. It does not include decorations or even painting. Take the case of a farmer with a byre for keeping cattle in. All that is insisted on there is that the place shall be well white-washed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, cattle!" and "Give him a chance."] The hon. Member does not give anybody a chance; he is too prejudiced. His interest is too much at stake. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] In the case to which I have referred, there is no compulsion to paint, but there is compulsion to put it into a sanitary state, even in regard to cattle. That is all that is applied to house property, namely that the owner of the property is only compelled to make it sanitary. He has not necessarily to paper it, but only to whitewash it and put it in the same condition as a man does a cattle-byre or a factory, which are two totally different things. Even then, he has an appeal. The sanitary inspector, in the first case, grants an order and, in my opinion, 99 times out of 100, the sanitary authority is more inclined to take the landlord's side than that of the tenant, because the local authority is dominated by people who are more or less interested in property. Consequently, like everybody else—like the officials in
this House, and like the officials in every place—they are inclined to serve those who have the majority, and who rule. That applies to the local authorities. Even there, after a certificate is given, the man has the right to appeal against that certificate being granted.
All this Amendment asks is very simple, and I am astounded at the attitude of the Attorney-General on this question. I speak with experience of a local authority. The Glasgow Corporation had a majority of people who were anti-Labour, and we discussed this selfsame proposal some time ago, because our opinion had been asked in relation to the Rent Restriction Act. Unanimously, the Corporation agreed that, in the interests of the great city, this Amendment, which we are now proposing, ought to be carried into law. Hon. Members talk about making it cheap. It is not uncommon for the cost of people going to the Sheriff Court to be £20 or £30. The total cost, if this Amendment were carried, might be only £5, yet the man who has a perfectly legitimate grievance may be run into costs reaching £20. The result is that you pay to the landlords every time. It is no use appealing to you. It is no use appealing to certain people; there are vested interests; the money interest is so strong; and to the last speaker that applies particularly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow that to be said. We do not allow anyone to impute personal motives.

Mr. BUCHANAN: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. BUCHANAN: I will withdraw for the only person who can ask me to withdraw—Mr. Speaker. If I made a remark which is wrong, which is un-Parliamentary and which is not commonly used in this House, then I withdraw. Finally, may I say, that in the division in which I live there are something like 1,000 houses already condemned. I know of a house in my constituency which is in a condition that one could hardly describe, with rats running all over the floors. You quote one case—I could quote 1,000 against you, and I hope the House will see the reasonableness of the Amendment which is now put forward.

Mr. WILLIAM HUTCHISON: We have had a great deal of discussion on what is, after all, a minor point. If hon. Members will refer to the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, Sections 14 and 15, they will find it clearly laid down that the landlord of a house of this class is required, when the house is originally let, to have it in a state reasonably fit for human habitation; and, by Section 15, he is required during the period of the letting to maintain the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. If the landlord does not do that, the local authority can do it, and the landlord, in going to court against the tenant for rent due, can be met by a defence on the ground of his failure to keep the house in reasonable repair, not only in regard to any increase of rent, but in regard to any rent at all. That is much more material and important than the point which we are discussing. The matter has been the subject of decisions in England; in Scotland, unfortunately, it was only last year that the question was taken up, and the Sheriff Principal of Renfrewshire, in the case of Weston against Morris, held that until the landlord executed all repairs which had on the evidence been found necessary, he would not be entitled to a single penny of rent. If the original rent is not payable in such circumstances, how much less is the increase of rent payable? If my hon. Friends opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: "Anything but your Friends!"]—if the hon. Members who are in opposition, would study previous Acts of Parliament, it would not be necessary to have so much discussion on a minor point when the major point is safeguarded in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act to which I have referred. If the landlord is met by the defence that the house is not reasonably fit for human habitation, and if that is proved by the evidence, the sheriff will refuse an order for the payment of the rent, and, in these circumstances, Parliament has already given protection to the tenants in regard to this question.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I wish to reply to the statement of the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. W. Hutchison) that powers for this purpose already exist, under the Act of 1909. If that is so, we find the same powers being enacted in
Clause 3 of the present Bill, and that seems to be redundant legislation for which the law officers have been responsible. I would point out that the case mentioned by the hon. Member was taken to the Sheriff Court and fought out by people who could afford to do so—by people living in a house which, in ordinary circumstances and properly repaired, would have been a decent house in a decent locality. The Amendment deals with houses in slum areas. It was not in a slum area that the case cited by the hon. Member arose.

Mr. W. HUTCHISON: The case I gave was one where the rent was under £16. Is that not pretty well a slum area, to start with?

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member shows that he does not understand the housing question in Scotland. I can take him into districts in the City of Glasgow where, prior to the War, a house of £10 was a decent house in a decent, artisan working-class district, but it is the slum areas we are talking about, not ordinary, decent, working-class dwellings. The cases dealt with by the Amendment are cases where the people scarcely have sufficient coming into the house to pay the rents that are being charged and to purchase a very inadequate supply of food and clothing for their families, and what is wanted by the hon. Member for Shettleston is that the Attorney-General shall frame a form of words that will cover the points put forward by him. His own form of words may be unfortunate, but any hon. Member trained in the law can pick holes in the verbal construction of any Amendment submitted. That is not the point that we should be at, however. The Attorney-General understands just as well as does the hon. Member for Shettleston what the hon. Member is aiming at in this Amendment, and so do the Scottish officers representing the Government. Why then quibble over the form of words? Why not recognise the human element in this case? Why not rise superior to all this quibbling, and get down to the human element? Here is a section of our people living in slum areas, many houses of which are similar to that house which was quoted by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston). Many houses are of that character, and these people cannot afford to take the owner or factor of the house
into court in order to prove that the house is insanitary. Let the sanitary authority—not the sanitary inspector, I would remind the hon. Member for Kelvingrove, not an individual, but the authority—be asked by the tenant to come down and inspect these particular houses; let the inspector who is sent then submit a report to the authority that governs his action, and let that authority then lay the report before the owner of the house, so that he can understand the complaint that is being alleged against him. Do all these things if you like, but, for goodness' sake, let us get these poor people, who cannot fight for themselves, to realise that the House of Commons can rise superior to mere words, that it can judge an issue upon its human merits, that it can look upon these people as people whom it is here to protect, that it can lose the party feeling that sometimes animates all of us on certain issues; but that, as far as the bottom dog in society is concerned, we are not going to have any party issue, but we are all going to unite in saying that he at least is going to have as decent a condition as we can guarantee him.
I hope the Attorney-General will appreciate our position and understand that we are not quibbling. I hope he will understand that this is not a fractious Amendment we are moving. It is an Amendment of some substance which, if carried, would confer enormous benefit upon thousands of people in our industrial towns as well as hundreds of people in our rural areas. I hope the Attorney-General and his advisers on the Scottish side will agree with us and that he will put into the Bill a form of words which will guarantee to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and the people on behalf of whom he speaks a protection which does not exist in the Bill at present.

Dr. CHAPPLE: This would be a very small concession for the Attorney-General to make but it would be a very large concession for the tenant to receive—the hopeless oppressed tenant. The Attorney-General said his objection to the Amendment was that it did not give the landlord an opportunity to be heard. The Attorney-General made a very strong case on behalf of the landlord, and I could not help thinking that if he had been defending the landlord in a court of law he would
not have done it better than he has tonight. But we are not advocates here; we are legislators. This, of course, is a landlords' Bill, and it is appropriate that the Attorney-General should state the landlords' case. I want to say a word for the tenant. The Attorney-General said the landlord would not have an opportunity to be heard, and that is his only objection to the Amendment, but the rent would only be suspended for a certain time. The landlord will not be deprived of it. The liability of the tenant to pay is suspended, for what reason? Because the house is uninhabitable. That is a very good reason, surely. We are not asking the landlord to forego any rent; we are only asking him to wait till repairs are such that the house is habitable. That is not a very great concession to make to the tenant, and it is not a very great hardship upon the landlord that you should suspend payment for a certain period, that period being the period during which the repairs are being made. The landlord has to satisfy the authority that these repairs had been made. The payment is suspended because the house is not habitable, because it is in disrepair, and as soon as it is put into repair the payment of rent resumes. The great advantage is that it is automatic on the part of the tenant. He has not to go to law. If he gets the sanitary authority to certify that the house requires repair, then the payment is suspended till it is put into repair. What a small concession to make to an oppressed and a helpless tenant! And yet we have the Attorney-General defending for twenty minutes the landlords against a small concession of that kind. We are pleading for the helpless and most poverty-stricken in the land, and yet the right hon. Gentleman spends 20 minutes defending the wealthiest in the land, and giving us the landlord's case against the poor, oppressed and helpless tenant. I appeal to him for a moment to become a legislator, and not a landlord's advocate. If he knows nothing about Scottish law, as he so modestly pleads, he has plenty of assistance. He has beside him the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who occupies his position because of his great knowledge of Scottish law. The right hon. Gentleman makes the objection that the landlord cannot be heard. Then let the right hon.
Gentleman call in the assistance of his colleague to see if he can devise an Amendment of this Clause in order to do justice to the landlord. If he is not satisfied with the advice of the Solicitor-General, where is the Lord Advocate? If the Lord Advocate cannot enjoy the privilege of sitting on the Treasury Bench, he can sit under the Gallery, and prompt the Attorney-General all the time. Here is a case peculiarly applicable to Scotland. Why then, not make use of all the resources?
The Amendment, if carried, would give simplicity to the case. The tenant would have redress automatically and spontaneously without going to a Court of Law; and in Scotland especially, the poorer the people are, the more they dread the Courts of Law. In Scotland we all dread the Courts of Law, except the lawyers. It sometimes pays to suffer a grave and persistent injustice rather than take the case to the Courts, and there is an inherent aversion among Scottish people to going to law. By threatening a man that "you will have the law on him, you can put the fear of death into him," and oppress him, and sometimes succeed with an unjust claim. This Amendment gives simplicity. It allows a tenant to approach the Sanitary Authority and automatically to get the landlord to sit up and take notice. The Attorney-General speaking on behalf of the landlord, with a tear in his voice, said the landlord could not be heard. It specifically says in the Amendment that the landlord has an opportunity of satisfying the authority that he has made the repairs. I know of a house in my constituency on which the increase has been paid all this time, and a promise was made to carry out repairs, which promise has never been fulfilled. The paper was hanging from the ceiling and walls, and a great part of the roof was in a gross state of disrepair. This tenant would see the authority who would give a certificate that the house was in a state of disrepair, and the following morning the landlord would be there to have a look at it. If there is any suspension—it may only be for a few days—you get the thing done automatically, rapidly. I went to circumvent the courts and the lawyer; to short-circuit the courts and to get justice as though the courts and lawyers were not there. If the suggestion we put forward is
followed out we get justice at once, and without going through the courts which are so much dreaded by many people. I am pleading on behalf of the poorest of the poor, and you the vested interests. Justice should be the cheapest thing that the State supplies to its citizens; in this country it is the dearest. It should be the most rapid; it is here the slowest. Here is one of the very few opportunities that we have in this place to get rapidity, cheapness, simplicity and to get justice done automatically and "while you wait." The Attorney-General calls up all his reserves and his knowledge and legal lore, and so we have spent the whole of the evening here. Who has wasted the time of the House? The man who wastes the time of the House is the man who resists a reasonable request. Who causes the greatest noise and riot in the House? He who persistently withholds justice! We have had illustration after illustration of that in our present Parliament. I am not going to allow anyone to challenge me in this matter; to accuse me of wasting the time of the House, or of keeping the Members out of bed. I point to the Attorney-General and to the absence of the Lord Advocate, and I say that this request is one of the most reasonable of requests.

Mr. SPEAKER: Might I remind the hon. Member of Standing Order 19?

Dr. CHAPPLE: I am sorry to have transgressed, but I seem to have read somewhere that nothing but repetition here impresses Ministers.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better read it again.

Dr. CHAPPLE: The Attorney-General can make me resume my seat at once and stop my speech if he makes the concession I demand. If—and this is a new point—if this concession be given the landlord is not asked to suffer. He is not impoverished. He is simply asked to do his duty. That is why I think that the request is reasonable if I may say that again. That is why I think the Attorney-General should answer the question which I put to him as to whether he will make such suggestions for the modification of this Amendment as will satisfy the criticism which he made, namely, that the landlord was not considered. I think we are entitled to have a word from the Solicitor-General
for Scotland. A Scottish member moved this Amendment and it was seconded by another Scottish member and we have put forward the difficulties arising in Scotland. They tried to show that there was a cheaper way by which they could proceed, and I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to try and satisfy the demands of Scottish members as to whether or not the lesser and the cheaper court might be used in Scotland and whether or not some modification of this Amendment in that direction might be made.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to put in a plea for the Amendment on behalf of the subordinate kingdom of England. This is not purely a Scottish question because it is one that affects very much the district from which I come. One hon. Member said the sanitary inspectors could make orders in these cases, but there is no sanitary authority in the country which allows the sanitary inspectors to make orders on anybody, and I never heard of such an ignorant statement as that. We have also been reminded by another hon. Member that the sanitary authority when it comes across bad dwellings has power to put them into a proper state of repair, but hon. Members must be aware that the Courts have held that when a sanitary authority has done that the payments can be spread over a long period of years and the poor sanitary authorities would be bankrupt before the money was paid. It is perfectly certain that if we had the power to say to the slum owner, instead of stepping in and putting his rotten dwellings in a state of repair and allowing him to repay us over a period of 30 years, "If you keep these dwellings in this condition you will not get any rent," the landlord would jolly soon put them into a proper state of repair. I hope that the Attorney-General will consult the Minister of Health for England and perhaps with the assistance of two or three hon. Members from each side of the House we might be able to come to an agreement as to an Amendment to be moved in another place. I only realised the great importance of this Amendment during the discussion. It is certainly one of substance and I can assure the hon. Member opposite who quoted the law on this subject that it is a dead letter because poor districts like Poplar cannot afford to put this kind of property into
a proper state of repair and spread the expense over a long period.
If the Attorney-General would give us a pledge, and we could have some consultation as to how to carry it into effect, I am sure the desire of his legal mind that we should not do an injustice to anyone could be satisfied. We only want to get rid of slums, to get rid of

the necessity for people paying a man for the privilege of living in a slum. There is only one way of doing that, and that is by stopping his rent when the place is a slum.

Question put, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 145.

Division No. 133.]
AYES.
[11.42 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Apsley, Lord
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Murchison, C. K.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Furness, G. J.
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Garland, C. S.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gates, Percy
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Goff, Sir R. Park
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Barrett, Major Richard W.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Barnston, Major Harry
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Paget, T. G.


Becker, Harry
Gretton, Colonel John
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pease, William Edwin


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Penny, Frederick George


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Betterton, Henry B.
Halstead, Major D.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Aitrincham)
Perring, William George


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pielou, D. P.


Blundell, F. N.
Harrison, F. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hawke, John Anthony
Privett, F. J.


Brass, Captain W.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Brittain, Sir Harry
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Remer, J. R.


Bruford, R.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rentoul, G. S.


Bruton, Sir James
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Robertson- Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Butcher, Sir John George
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rothschild, Lionel de


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Button, H. S.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hudson, Capt. A.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hughes, Collingwood
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hume, G. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Shepperson, E. W.


Clayton, G. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Cope, Major William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lamb, J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Stanley, Lord


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Lorden, John William
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lougher, L.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Torrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Manville, Edward
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Margesson, H. D. R.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ednam, Viscount
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Ellis, R. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wallace, Captain E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Winterton, Earl
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Wells, S. R.
Wise, Frederick
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Wolmer, Viscount



White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Whitla, Sir William
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Lieut.-


Willey, Arthur
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)
Colonel Gibbs.


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George




NOES


Adams, D.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hastings, Patrick
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Alexander, A. V, (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Phillipps, Vivian


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Ponsonby, Arthur


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Potts, John S.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Richards, R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Herriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Briant, Frank
Hill, A.
Riley, Ben


Broad, F. A.
Hinds, John
Ritson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Burgess, S.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Rose, Frank H.


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Saklatvala, S.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Salter, Dr. A.


Cairns, John
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.


Chapple, W. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Simpson, J. Hope


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Snell, Harry


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Philip


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Dunnico, H.
Leach, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, F.
Thornton, M.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Linfield, F. C.
Turner, Ben


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Foot, Isaac
M'Entee, V. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
McLaren, Andrew
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Greenall, T.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Millar, J. D.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wintringham, Margaret


Grundy, T. W.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wright, W.


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Nichol, Robert



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. John Robertson and Mr.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
Lunn.


Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. FAIRBAIRN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to insert a new Sub-section—
(3) A sanitary authority may appoint a Committee for the purpose of this Act and may delegate, with or without restrictions, to such Committee or to an existing Committee of the authority all or any of the powers of the authority under this Act.
I hope the Government will accept this as it is a drafting Amendment that will be very convenient to local authorities, and one that is really essential if they are to carry out the proposals of the Attorney-General.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am going to ask the House to accept this Amendment—[Interruption]—and I hope the Opposition is not going to decide against it now that we are agreed. It is an Amendment which I think will be useful, because it will enable the Sanitary Authority to act through a Committee instead of their whole body. I think that may be useful and of practical assistance.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered, That the Lords Message [1st May] communicating the Resolution, namely, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, be now considered.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — HAWKSHEAD MISSION CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.

Read a Second time.

Resolved,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[MR. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of Scheme.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not wish to delay this Bill, but I think it has been the habit in the past to explain these measures before they are past.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY (Charity Commissioner): I am not allowed to make any explanation of this Bill, but I may say that it is purely non-contentious, and in the interest of a charity.

Clause 2 (Short Title) and Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LUCAS'S HOSPITAL CHARITY BILL.

Read a Second time.

Resolved,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TANCRED'S CHARITIES BILL,

Read a Second time.

Resolved,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Confirmation of Scheme) and 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

Scheme for the application or management of Tancred's Charities regulated by the Act of Parliament 2 Geo. III. c. 15 (Private) by a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners of the 24th May, 1870, by the Act of Parliament 34 and 35 Vict. c. 117 by a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners made in pursuance of the last-mentioned Act on the twenty-first August eighteen hundred and seventy-two and by the Tancred Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1899 (62 and 63 Vict. c. cclxxvii,).

Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."

Captain BENN: Paragraph 8 of the Schedule provides that
The Governors shall apply the said yearly sum of £240, the incomes of the Whexley Manor Fund, and the other equal part of the balance of the clear yearly income as follows.
The sum mentioned does not appear to me to be adequate for the purpose, and I would be obliged if the hon. gentleman in charge would give some explanation of this portion of the Schedule and of the two succeeding pages.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: This charity came about through the death of Mr. Tancred, about 150 years ago. He left a considerable estate and a house, which was originally intended to accommodate a certain number of gentlemen, who were to live together in perfect unity. Unfortunately, they did not do so, and the money was devoted to educational purposes. Within the last two years the property has been sold, and a considerable increase of money has come to the charity, owing to the sale of the property, and it
was decided to allot it in scholarships as far as possible to the people who were to be benefited by the charity. That was the effect intended by the Charity Commissioners and the Board of Education. The Bill carries out that desire as far as possible.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay.]

12 M.

Mr. MACLEAN: I noticed that right hon. and gallant Member said that this was a charity inaugurated 150 years ago. In paragraph 11 of the Schedule, there is the expression "existing pensioners." Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain what these are? Are they the colleagues
of the gentleman who died 150 years ago?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The original fund has been enormously increased by the sale of property, and it has been possible in that way to increase materially the value of the scholarships.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.